The Religion Discussion Thread

[katarn]

To the last bit: I will repeat a call for reasoning for your assertion that religion is not a reality based system. Remember that to us, it is reality. There are arguments, which do you like?

Foremost that the deity based religions (the majority in the western world) have deities that simply have no proof of existence. The concept of a deity itself has no proof - I'm not picking on any particular God. No one has ever seen, recorded, or in any way shown evidence of a deity. Someone clearly made them up. Maybe for a very good reason, but fiction nonetheless.

You are right that they have no proof of existence, but proof and evidence are not the same. There are several evidences of some deity that can be observed/inferred from the natural world. A lack of proof does not constitute evidence that someone made them up. Of course, I would argue that all but my own deity are made up, but that is another point than whether any exist.

A simple example of evidence of a deity that falls into the inferrable category is the existence of the universe. How, without a deity, does the universe begin?

[SuburbanFarmer]

To the last bit: I will repeat a call for reasoning for your assertion that religion is not a reality based system. Remember that to us, it is reality. There are arguments, which do you like?

Foremost that the deity based religions (the majority in the western world) have deities that simply have no proof of existence. The concept of a deity itself has no proof - I'm not picking on any particular God. No one has ever seen, recorded, or in any way shown evidence of a deity. Someone clearly made them up. Maybe for a very good reason, but fiction nonetheless.

You are right that they have no proof of existence, but proof and evidence are not the same. There are several evidences of some deity that can be observed/inferred from the natural world. A lack of proof does not constitute evidence that someone made them up. Of course, I would argue that all but my own deity are made up, but that is another point than whether any exist.

A simple example of evidence of a deity that falls into the inferrable category is the existence of the universe. How, without a deity, does the universe begin?

There are too many possible answers to list - quantum entanglement? bump from another dimension? Bang/Crunch cycle? Maybe this is just the outflow from a huge black hole in another universe. Maybe StA farted, who knows.

Point is, that it's just the latest Unexplained Thing that 'requires' a God to explain. Previous examples included lightning, volcanoes, and earthquakes. There's no reason to expect a God to be required for this to happen. We just realized that distant objects are tinted red, figured that must mean they're moving apart, extrapolated backwards, and figured it must have come from a single spot. Then the theoretical physicists all came in with theories about how it happened, and we've been working on it since. Hell, maybe space is just tinted red, and the universe isn't expanding after all. Frankly, that would make a Creator much more likely, since we wouldn't even have a theoretical way for things to get where they are.

If you see a chemistry experiment turn the wrong color, or think your candle burned extra-long, you can "infer" a divine intervention, or you can get to work figuring out what you don't understand.

[katarn]

Foremost that the deity based religions (the majority in the western world) have deities that simply have no proof of existence. The concept of a deity itself has no proof - I'm not picking on any particular God. No one has ever seen, recorded, or in any way shown evidence of a deity. Someone clearly made them up. Maybe for a very good reason, but fiction nonetheless.

You are right that they have no proof of existence, but proof and evidence are not the same. There are several evidences of some deity that can be observed/inferred from the natural world. A lack of proof does not constitute evidence that someone made them up. Of course, I would argue that all but my own deity are made up, but that is another point than whether any exist.

A simple example of evidence of a deity that falls into the inferrable category is the existence of the universe. How, without a deity, does the universe begin?

There are too many possible answers to list - quantum entanglement? bump from another dimension? Bang/Crunch cycle? Maybe this is just the outflow from a huge black hole in another universe. Maybe StA farted, who knows.

Point is, that it's just the latest Unexplained Thing that 'requires' a God to explain. Previous examples included lightning, volcanoes, and earthquakes. There's no reason to expect a God to be required for this to happen. We just realized that distant objects are tinted red, figured that must mean they're moving apart, extrapolated backwards, and figured it must have come from a single spot. Then the theoretical physicists all came in with theories about how it happened, and we've been working on it since. Hell, maybe space is just tinted red, and the universe isn't expanding after all. Frankly, that would make a Creator much more likely, since we wouldn't even have a theoretical way for things to get where they are.

If you see a chemistry experiment turn the wrong color, or think your candle burned extra-long, you can "infer" a divine intervention, or you can get to work figuring out what you don't understand.

Lightning, volcanoes, etc are all in the universe. The beginning of the universe is different because nothing else in existence can be used to explain its beginning, because nothing else exists. Theorizing anything else is equivalent to theorizing a deity, ie, it can be done, but I then go with whichever is more plausible. As to quantum physics, they do not exist without a universe. They can't used to explain its beginning. Bang crunch cycle would need something to cause the crunch. I'm no expert, but I'm not aware of what could cause that. The black hole idea and other dimensional bump theories just extend the problem back.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You are right that they have no proof of existence, but proof and evidence are not the same. There are several evidences of some deity that can be observed/inferred from the natural world. A lack of proof does not constitute evidence that someone made them up. Of course, I would argue that all but my own deity are made up, but that is another point than whether any exist.

A simple example of evidence of a deity that falls into the inferrable category is the existence of the universe. How, without a deity, does the universe begin?

There are too many possible answers to list - quantum entanglement? bump from another dimension? Bang/Crunch cycle? Maybe this is just the outflow from a huge black hole in another universe. Maybe StA farted, who knows.

Point is, that it's just the latest Unexplained Thing that 'requires' a God to explain. Previous examples included lightning, volcanoes, and earthquakes. There's no reason to expect a God to be required for this to happen. We just realized that distant objects are tinted red, figured that must mean they're moving apart, extrapolated backwards, and figured it must have come from a single spot. Then the theoretical physicists all came in with theories about how it happened, and we've been working on it since. Hell, maybe space is just tinted red, and the universe isn't expanding after all. Frankly, that would make a Creator much more likely, since we wouldn't even have a theoretical way for things to get where they are.

If you see a chemistry experiment turn the wrong color, or think your candle burned extra-long, you can "infer" a divine intervention, or you can get to work figuring out what you don't understand.

Lightning, volcanoes, etc are all in the universe. The beginning of the universe is different because nothing else in existence can be used to explain its beginning, because nothing else exists. Theorizing anything else is equivalent to theorizing a deity, ie, it can be done, but I then go with whichever is more plausible. As to quantum physics, they do not exist without a universe. They can't used to explain its beginning. Bang crunch cycle would need something to cause the crunch. I'm no expert, but I'm not aware of what could cause that. The black hole idea and other dimensional bump theories just extend the problem back.

It's turtles all the way down, man. No reason to think that we have any hope of understanding Everything. Only religion can provide that level of certainty.

The problem is no different than when the surrounding 100 sq miles were the universe. You still need an origin story, and stories for the events that can't be explained. The only difference is that we're looking at a much bigger area now. The universe might not (probably isn't) all of reality. Maybe we'll find a concrete answer for the origin of the universe, involving other universes. Then religion sweeps in to establish a fall-back position, and science marches forward to find the answer.

What happens when we find life on other planets? Garden of Eden, becomes a 'metaphor', but God still loves us the bestest. What about when we find superior/more intelligent life? Humans no longer matter in the universe, along with 6-day-creation, and 6,000 year-old-universe. Religion will say that we're still the special-ist, and our feelz are more important than theirs. Probably try to declare a holy war for Heaven, or some such.

Religion is infinitely adaptable to reality, and you can always come up with another place for God to be hiding. At some point, you have to accept the diminishing returns, though.

[Speaker to Animals]

You're deflecting. The fact that the universe has a beginning is devastating to atheism. Of all the possible positions to take, the only one more untenable than atheism given the scientific evidence is primitive paganism. The Big Bang discovery absolutely devastated atheism in the academy. That's why the Soviets banned it being taught in their universities. It's why two generations of atheist physicists have wasted their intellectual lives on applied metaphysics instead of real science. It's only in vapid pop culture that atheism remains a thing. Atheism simply is not logically coherent given what we know now.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You're deflecting. The fact that the universe has a beginning is devastating to atheism. Of all the possible positions to take, the only one more untenable than atheism given the scientific evidence is primitive paganism. The Big Bang discovery absolutely devastated atheism in the academy. That's why the Soviets banned it being taught in their universities. It's why two generations of atheist physicists have wasted their intellectual lives on applied metaphysics instead of real science. It's only in vapid pop culture that atheism remains a thing. Atheism simply is not logically coherent given what we know now.

If you say so. Like I said, we are only extrapolating from a redshift in distant objects. If that makes a God for you, then who am I to argue.

[Speaker to Animals]

You're deflecting. The fact that the universe has a beginning is devastating to atheism. Of all the possible positions to take, the only one more untenable than atheism given the scientific evidence is primitive paganism. The Big Bang discovery absolutely devastated atheism in the academy. That's why the Soviets banned it being taught in their universities. It's why two generations of atheist physicists have wasted their intellectual lives on applied metaphysics instead of real science. It's only in vapid pop culture that atheism remains a thing. Atheism simply is not logically coherent given what we know now.

If you say so. Like I said, we are only extrapolating from a redshift in distant objects. If that makes a God for you, then who am I to argue.

Well, you know right off the bat there must be a first cause, that this cause exists outside time and space, and it is all-powerful, since it has the power to create the entire universe and time and space. That's bad news bears for Team Atheism. It's why they invented their own unprovable God they named Mulitiverse.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You're deflecting. The fact that the universe has a beginning is devastating to atheism. Of all the possible positions to take, the only one more untenable than atheism given the scientific evidence is primitive paganism. The Big Bang discovery absolutely devastated atheism in the academy. That's why the Soviets banned it being taught in their universities. It's why two generations of atheist physicists have wasted their intellectual lives on applied metaphysics instead of real science. It's only in vapid pop culture that atheism remains a thing. Atheism simply is not logically coherent given what we know now.

If you say so. Like I said, we are only extrapolating from a redshift in distant objects. If that makes a God for you, then who am I to argue.

Well, you know right off the bat there must be a first cause, that this cause exists outside time and space, and it is all-powerful, since it has the power to create the entire universe and time and space. That's bad news bears for Team Atheism. It's why they invented their own unprovable God they named Mulitiverse.

You're right. We should just drop all of this 'sciency' stuff, and focus on re-reading ancient tribesman scribbles

Your string of fallacies is impressive in this post.

[Speaker to Animals]

If you say so. Like I said, we are only extrapolating from a redshift in distant objects. If that makes a God for you, then who am I to argue.

Well, you know right off the bat there must be a first cause, that this cause exists outside time and space, and it is all-powerful, since it has the power to create the entire universe and time and space. That's bad news bears for Team Atheism. It's why they invented their own unprovable God they named Mulitiverse.

You're right. We should just drop all of this 'sciency' stuff, and focus on re-reading ancient tribesman scribbles

Your string of fallacies is impressive in this post.

You are the one doing that. I am talking to you about science and general philosophy. Like most vapid atheists, you jump around when you get cornered. When somebody corners you in the argument about first cause (which really does demolish the typical atheist position), the typical atheist jumps off to arguing about specific religions. The reason for this seems to be that atheism is basically a confidence game for average IQ people who have self-esteem problems. They desperately want to feel smarter than the average, but they really don't possess the intellect to explore these topics with any more depth than a Bill the "Science" Guy video.

I wouldn't count atheism out as a philosophical force in the long run either. Obviously the current crop is fucking silly. The days of Hume and Nietzsche are long gone. There exist no fearsome opponents in atheism today. Someday in the future, maybe. It would take something truly novel and revolutionary like how the golden age of atheism began to realize a new atheist golden age. But the greater minds in philosophy are rejecting it on basic principles and current evidence right now.

The fruits of atheism are scary as fuck too. That might be a major limiting factor. We don't need any more genocides.

[Speaker to Animals]

Seriously, forget religion and just focus on atheism itself. The only way you can reconcile it with the scientific evidence today is by postulating unprovable multiverses and whatnot. Which is not actually a scientific hypothesis since it cannot be tested. But just accepting it as the religious proposition that it is, one can show that it's both internally contradictory (you cannot mathematically have time without a beginning because of Hilbert's Paradox) and it is itself a rejection of the fundamental premise of atheism in that the proposition represents both a leap of unprovable faith and at that a terribly disguised version of God.