[color=green]MOD NOTE: Continued from this thread. --DB[/color]
Heh. Over 10,000 views. I’ve gotten a good 200 posts added to my post count from this thread 
… and isn’t that the reason we all post anything?
As far as God vs god(s) goes, i think that once you cross the logic line and declare your belief that there is a God, it is completely unbehoven of you to declare that there are not gods as well. If God exists, then so do gods. Riddle yourself out of that one: there is as much evidence for the existence of multiple gods as there is for just one God. I mean, your evidence comes from having many people ‘experience’ the same belief system (which is not really evidence of anything apart from mass delusion into a self-sustaining Church) and there are actually more people who believe in multiple gods than in a single God, especially if you count all the people throughout history who have believed in gods, so for their case, the ‘evidence’ is actually stronger.
And the sex of God (or gender, if you prefer not to think of gods as having sex, which would surely be fornication as none of them are ‘married’: I mean, who is the God’s God to get married in front of?) is pretty much open to debate as well. But in many Pantheons, there is/was a great deal of sex going on: just look at all the Greek gods and their antics. Zeus, Vulcan, Poseidon, Apollo… all incestuously related, too. simlar in the Norse Pantheon, and in Hindu stories occasionally. and then there’s the Divine Japanese emperors, who actually have children here on earth who also become Divine. Jesus is not the only one to straddle both the real and the unreal kingdoms, not to mention all the Bodhisattvas, and the Buddha himself…
Blasphemy, I know. But I’m not worried about it. Nor am I worried about apostasy.
This might provide an idea of what some Christians believe in…The Chechen Siege: Caring for My Enemy
…forgiveness.
Bob, no it doesn’t. What you said above does not prove your point at all.
You are trying to say that because one thing is known and it is unknown if another thing has happened or not, the thing that is known to be possible is the better explanation when someone claims that the unknown thing happened.
We know there are cats that don’t have purple fur.
We know people can dye a cat’s fur.
A person claims to have seen a cat born with purple fur.
It is more rational to believe that a person dyed the fur purple than to believe the cat was born with purple fur.
(In case you didn’t know, the asterisk shows the a mistake.) Those statements do not add up. Even if the conclusion is true you can’t make that conclusion from the premises. [/quote]
Analogies work better when they are analogous. It is a logical thing and therefore perhaps of some interest to you. Try this…
We know that most cats don’t have purple fur.
We know people dye cat’s fur purple all the time.
A person claims to have seen a cat born with purple fur.
It is more rational to believe that a person dyed the fur purple than to believe the cat was born with purple fur.
It wasn’t a conclusion or a premise. All I did was say that irrationality is a common feature of insanity.
I’ll say.
Yes, I am. I am arguing that it would be more rational to believe that all those people were misguided, bonko or lying than that they actually heard God speak. In fact God may have spoken but we have no scientifically verifiable way of proving that one way or another.
Remind me again. Where did I make a mistake.
No it isn’t.
We don’t have scientific evidence that they didn’t. The question is which is a more rational explanation. Mine is.
They said that they heard God speak. Common schizophrenic symptom.
No, I’d think she was Jesus.
I like conclude better. Why would anyone believe something that they could not rationally conclude?
[quote]Whoah. Who said anything about proving the reality that God actually spoke? Apples and oranges. We’re talking about belief, not proof. All I have to show is that:
- It is rational to believe there is a God
- It is rational to believe that God spoke
Nothing about proving the reality of any event. [/quote]
OK.
[quote]Quote b0b:
You will need to prove that my theory that the element of irrationality
No I don’t. You would have to prove that. You have failed to make a prima facie case for your position. So, there’s nothing to disprove. Regardless, I don’t have to disprove your position to prove my own. [/quote]
What I want to argue is that my theory is more rational than yours based on the evidence we have. That’s all.
[quote]Completely unacceptable. No, I was thinking about neutral parties. We can have them all be atheists/agnostics if you wish, as long as I can accept their ability to follow a logical argument. Neither Sat. TV nor Joshini are acceptable as judges for any such argument. Gao bo han is not acceptable either as he is clearly biased in this matter, but I would accept him as a judge of logic in another case.
I’d like to see Hobbes, Tomas, Tigerman, Hartzell, or Dragonbones. There are some others I would be happy to see included, but those are the names that spring to mind.
To be proven: I must show using a logical proof that it is rational to believe that there is a God who has spoken to people. After I set forth my argument you can attempt to point out errors in logic or show one or more of my premises to be false. If you succeed, I will have the chance to make corrections.
Agreed?[/quote]
No. You have not yet agreed that irrationality is usually a key feature of insanity. If you can come to terms with that then you can go ahead and argue that is rational to believe that GOD SPOKE even when there is no scientifically verifiable basis for such a claim, and there is a scientific basis for other explanations. Your choice of judges was very good but would like to add broonale, fred, jdsmith and urodacus to the list of possible candidates. Get three of them to sign up, agree to my parameters and you got yourself a debate.
bob,
There’s one aspect of your argument I don’t understand. You say that a person can rationally believe in God, but not rationally believe God spoke to him. Is that correct? If so, then could you explain why you think God cannot speak to humans?
I understand that you believe it is more rational to believe someone was having a delusion rather than speaking to God, but that issue is separate to whether it is irrational to claim to speak to God.
In my opinion, believing what you like to believe has nothing to do with logic. The only logic I see in it goes something like this: When I believe in a powerful invisible omnipresent force, one of peace forgiveness etc., and I remember this belief every day and give it a name, share it with other people who believe it too, I feel like a better person, like a human, and it gives my life meaning.
Let’s take it to absurdity; take Sesamestreet. Let’s say Big Bird becomes “IT”. Big Bird loves everyone. He talks to me, if I listen in silence. In my heart, I tell poems to Big Bird. Big Bird responds, I can feel it! The more I do this, the more I feel ‘his’ presence. I feel so complete since I started believing in Big Bird!
See, you believe something, and it is seemingly supported (millions of people believe, there are churches around the world, there is a book about it that is thousands years old). But really, this is just information. It was given to you at one point in your life. There is no proof, you just believed it from the start, because there is a vague fuzzy feeling of goodness when you do, and that is encouraged by authority figures. And when you pump it up enough, it becomes a ‘divine’ feeling, even with mystical experiences. I’m sure you can understand my above example; you only need an object of devotion. You call it: God. Or Jesus.
WHATEVER!!! The true motive is, you feel you and your life have more value with a belief like this. So in reality, it’s an ego motive, because it’s about YOU. (Not to say it is egoistic, that’s something different).
It definitely has a value in society, because you become a morally better person, a nice and good person. But don’t forget: you also have to defend a stupid underlying belief! Stupid, because it is totally unfounded (*). When that belief is touched by others… perhaps your better person-ness starts to show cracks…
(*) Now don’t slap me with the bible, please, for I know it probably more edited than Wikipedia
[quote=“RDO”]But, you mean, can a person believe there are no aliens and claim to be abducted by aliens? No.[/quote]Yes, that’s what I mean. Glad we finally agree. 
Interpreting your experience as an alien abduction, or interpreting it as being evidence that God/ UFO’s exists are both subjective experiences. In both cases one could just be disillusioned or accurate.
But like you mentioned above, without beliefs, subjective interpretation will not allow the possibility that the experience is evidence in favor of the existence of UFOs or God if one doesn’t believe that God or Aliens exist, whichever applies.
OK, carry on now. 
[quote=“joshini”][quote=“RDO”]But, you mean, can a person believe there are no aliens and claim to be abducted by aliens? No.[/quote]Yes, that’s what I mean. Glad we finally agree.
Interpreting your experience as an alien abduction, or interpreting it as being evidence that God/ UFO’s exists are both subjective experiences. In both cases one could just be disillusioned or accurate.
But like you mentioned above, without beliefs, subjective interpretation will not allow the possibility that the experience is evidence in favor of the existence of UFOs or God if one doesn’t believe that God or Aliens exist, whichever applies.[/quote]
Yes, we agree that you can’t believe you were abducted by aliens and not believe in aliens, but we don’t agree about the bolded part.
If, for example, I were taken to a place and saw some sort of light that looked like a spaceship appear and float around. Then if, say, I were to suddenly start floating up towards the air towards the light before there was a flash of light followed by the spaceship-like light departing rapidly and then I suddenly fell to the ground, I would take that to be evidence of aliens and spaceships.
Now perhaps I would still think there were no aliens or spaceships. But I could not explain my experience. I’d have to concede that the experience I had was evidence in favor of there being aliens and spaceships. The experience fits that position better than my own.
This is what I’m saying. It is possible to believe A but believe there is evidence that supports the belief 'A (not A).
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]bob,
There’s one aspect of your argument I don’t understand. You say that a person can rationally believe in God, but not rationally believe God spoke to him. Is that correct? [/quote]
Almost. The most rational position I think is agnosticism but given certain observable phenomenon such as beauty, compassion human consciousness etc. I can see why some people might postulate that there exists an intelligent, compassionate force behind the big bang.
“If” such a God exists and has spoken we don’t have any way to confirm that fact with any scientific certainty. On the surface of it, the notion that voices appear out of thin air is ridiculous, as ridiculous as a host of other things that humanity has come to reject over time.
Not quite. People can claim that they speak to God and for all I know God is listening. What I don’t believe is that God responds in audible form, or that the thoughts that people have are messages from God. People are trained to interpret their own thoughts as messages from God but this is an entirely different thing from recieving “actual” messages from God.
If I have changed my position over the course of this discussion it has been with regard to the notion that it is insane to believe in a speaking god. I am no longer certain about this. I now realize that the arguments that have been presented here are not part and parcel of everyone’s mindset. Some people who believe in a speaking god have not thought the thing through completely and could not therefore be regarded as insane but perhaps just intellectually lazy or deficient in some way. People who do understand the arguments, particularly with regard to the human tendency to reduce guilt and anxiety throught deluded thinking, but continue to believe that God talks actually are bonko with relation to their religious beliefs. Or perhaps there isn’t so much to distinguish the stupid from the bonko, particularly with regard to religious belief. I will admit to being unclear myself on this point.
Ectoplasma is on to something similar…
[quote]See, you believe something, and it is seemingly supported (millions of people believe, there are churches around the world, there is a book about it that is thousands years old). But really, this is just information. It was given to you at one point in your life. There is no proof, you just believed it from the start, because there is a vague fuzzy feeling of goodness when you do, and that is encouraged by authority figures. And when you pump it up enough, it becomes a ‘divine’ feeling, even with mystical experiences. I’m sure you can understand my above example; you only need an object of devotion. You call it: God. Or Jesus.
WHATEVER!!! The true motive is, you feel you and your life have more value with a belief like this. So in reality, it’s an ego motive, because it’s about YOU. (Not to say it is egoistic, that’s something different).
It definitely has a value in society, because you become a morally better person, a nice and good person. But don’t forget: you also have to defend a stupid underlying belief! Stupid, because it is totally unfounded (*). When that belief is touched by others… perhaps your better person-ness starts to show cracks…
(*) Now don’t slap me with the bible, please, for I know it probably more edited than Wikipedia[/quote]
[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]The experience fits that position better than my own.
[/quote]Exactly.
I understand that you believe the most rational belief is agnosticism. But if you believe that belief in God is rational (albeit not the most rational), then it follows that a person who rationally believes in God can also rationally believe God spoke to him. What I’m asking you to clarify is, why do you think a person can rationally believe in God, but not rationally believe God spoke him?
Agreed, but as has been stated, a belief does NOT need to be scientifically provable to be rational. [Crucial word added!]
Remember that you prefaced your statement with “if such a God exists.” Well, if God exists, then God speaking to people is not ridiculous. It’s only ridiculous if God doesn’t exist.
Then you’d better word your own more carefully. “all the time” is sloppy. You’d need to say “often”. But then, we are dealing with both hallucinations and lies. You can say people often lie, but I think it’s not often that people hallucinate.
Of course it’s a premise. You are trying to say it is “bonkers” to believe that God talks. You are trying to use this definition to set up your argument. That’s what a premise is.
Your “definition” of insanity is just that it is a lot of irrationality.
Yes, I am.[/quote]
Just a second ago you were saying you weren’t trying to prove anything. As I said and you just admitted, you are.
Then make the argument. You haven’t done so yet. You’ve just stated an opinion and talked about a lack of scientific evidence-- which you have to admit doesn’t mean a belief is irrational. So, if it’s not just lack of scientific evidence, then what is it?
Use of circular reasoning. Incorrect definitions. Non sequitur.
I’ve shown it to you. It’s posted on the other thread. Just saying “it isn’t” means nothing.
That’s a bald assertion, nothing else. You haven’t shown why yours is more rational. I say it isn’t. So what?
Now, personally, I don’t really care if you believe that your way of thinking about God is more rational. That’s fine. In fact, I’d say that from your perspective it is probably more rational for you to believe everyone who ever claimed to speak with God must be bonkers, liars, or whatever. But that doesn’t mean your perspective is the only rational perspective.
Now when you go and call everyone who believes in God insane for believing in God, then there’s a problem. You are claiming that your perspective on the issue is the only possible rational way of thinking. You are claiming it cannot be at all rational to believe in God. You are claiming that it is so irrational that it is insane.
I would never argue with you that your belief that all the prophets were liars and/or psychotics is irrational. But I will argue with your assertion that yours is the only rational one anyone can have, or that yours is more rational than another.
Sure. So is claiming to be a person of great importance. The argument means nothing. Once again, you need to invoke Occam’s razor to complete your argument. It’s a weak argument, but at least it is complete.
No, I’d think she was Jesus.[/quote]
Wouldn’t that make you bonkers?
I like conclude better. Why would anyone believe something that they could not rationally conclude?[/quote]
Human nature. Heuristics. Survival.
The majority of our beliefs are quite fluid. We believe them up until we find contradictory evidence, then we adjust our beliefs. People often act on a belief that they are not sure of. They don’t make a “conclusion” until later.
If so, then you’re going to need to set up your theory a lot better. If you feel like doing so you can make your own logical proof and submit it to the same judges.
Then show it. I don’t have to agree. In fact, I don’t agree. Most insanity is not related to rationality. It’s related to perception.
So, if you want to prove it then do so.
I don’t agree to the parameter that I have to agree to your definition. You’ll have to prove that yourself if you want. While I wouldn’t mind jdsmith as a judge I’d have to reject him in this case as there is a potential conflict of interests.
So, then, you prove your case, I prove mine? You argue it is irrational/insane to believe there is a God who speaks? I argue it is rational to believe there is a God who speaks?
[quote=“RDO”]You are claiming it cannot be at all rational to believe in God. You are claiming that it is so irrational that it is insane. [/quote]How many times does the guy really have to tell you that he thinks it’s insane to believe that God spoke, not that God exists? You can’t tell the difference, and that is what non sequitur really is according to bob’s rationality.
[quote=“GBH”]Agreed, but as has been stated, a belief does need to be scientifically provable to be rational. [/quote]That is correct. Therefore, belief that RDO is bonkers does not need scientific proof to be rational either.
Oops, I meant “not need.” I made the correction.
But if it’s rational for God to exist then it’s rational that he can speak. So, essentially it’s the same argument.
No, but it does need to be supported by something reasonable. But it’s perfectly possible that Bob’s belief is irrational.
Oops, I meant “not need.” I made the correction.[/quote]I knew that. See the bolded part above.
I don’t believe that a person can rationally believe in God, I believe that he can rationally believe that there might be a God because that is beyond the realm of provavbility one way or the other and in the universe there exists certain characteristics that point to his existence. If they swing way towards the theist end of the spectrum I think they are being irrational but not neccesarily overly so. Agnosticism is the only rational choice. If I didn’t believe that I would change my philosophy.
I don’t believe that it is rational to believe in a God that talks becasue there is no scientifically verifiable evidence that he does and there are other reasonable explanations for the phenomenon we have of people experiencing God talking: people lied, hallucinated, were deluded by social pressures, anxiety, guilt etc.
[quote]If, for example, I were taken to a place and saw some sort of light that looked like a spaceship appear and float around. Then if, say, I were to suddenly start floating up towards the air towards the light before there was a flash of light followed by the spaceship-like light departing rapidly and then I suddenly fell to the ground, I would take that to be evidence of aliens and spaceships.
Now perhaps I would still think there were no aliens or spaceships. But I could not explain my experience. I’d have to concede that the experience I had was evidence in favor of there being aliens and spaceships. The experience fits that position better than my own. [/quote]
“Wow! What just happened? Could I have suffered some kind of seizure? Maybe some kind of mental fugue? NAAAH! I was abducted by aliens! That must be it!”
Good grief.
[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]
Then you’d better word your own more carefully. “all the time” is sloppy. You’d need to say “often”. But then, we are dealing with both hallucinations and lies. You can say people often lie, but I think it’s not often that people hallucinate.[/quote]
You are right. Change all the time to “often” and what you are left with is an analogy that was a lot more appropriate to the discussion than the flawed one that you originally entered for the purpose of obfuscation.
I argued that irrationality is often a key feature of insanity. That does not preclude the possibility of listing other features.
It depends on the belief.
Blah blah blah
No, it is just the most rational perspective and since it is the most rational perspective a person would be irrational not to accept it. To whatever extent they develop upon that irrationality they are insane.
No, I’m claiming that it is insane, misguided or stupid (I’ve expanded upon my theory recently) to belive that GOD TALKS.
Yes, I was kidding.
So perhaps later you will see the rationality of my arguments here?
And perception is related to reason. Hallucinations may be beyond reason but delusions certainly are not.
Why would you want to do that if irrationality is not related to insanity? I thought you were trying to respond to the whole GOD SPEAKING is a bonko concept. By your own reasoning if you think that irrationality is not a key feature of insanity you prove nothing. We could conclude that you were rational but still bonko.
But of course that is not how I see it. If you can make a rational argument that it is rational to believe in a God that SPEAKS I will agree to quit calling your religious delusions bonko. I won’t construct a formal proof because I have no idea how and I don’t have time anyway.
You are the one who claims it is rational to think that words appear out of thin air. You prove it’s not bonko.
But if it’s rational for God to exist then it’s rational that he can speak.[/quote]Did God actually speak words to you? Personally, I’ve always thought that if God indeed communicates with mortals, it would be through subjective enlightenment of some sort. Not with words.
No, but it does need to be supported by something reasonable.[/quote]Not logical, not rational, not reasonable… non sequitur, fallacies, bad premises, etc. You are relentless in claiming that others are wrong. Don’t you get it? It’s faith in God you are defending. Faith subjectively defies reason. Faith subjectively defies logic. Faith subjectively defies rationality. Faith subjectively defies common sense and all that.
We agree that there is no objective evidence that God exists. Isn’t that in itself objective evidence that God doesn’t exist? If I see a dry river bed and say that there is no water in the river, I have objective evidence that there is indeed no water. If I see no God and say that there is no God, I think I have objective evidence. If not objective, at least it’s a lot more evidence that God doesn’t exist compared with nothing but subjective evidence that he exists. Thousands of years of worshiping Gods, and still no objective evidence that this belief is reasonable. Hence, it is pretty darn reasonable to think that there is no God, or that God never spoke. It is reasonable to think your belief is bonko.
But still, you’ll argue ad infinitum that bob (or anyone) is wrong, that he is not thinking logically, that he is irrational, and that he is not supporting his opinion reasonably. It’s tiresome. Not to mention all the semantical analysis in order to decorticate every single word people write. Read between the lines as I suggested earlier. Get a feel for what people are trying to convey instead of analyzing every word written. This is not a science/religious conference. It’s a thread on a bloody bulletin board.
Now that’s me playing the role of “promoter of the faith.” I don’t think having faith is all that bonko. Not because I believe in God, but because I believe that there are a lot of phenomenons in almost every field of science that are unexplained. Although scientific mysteries may one day be uncovered, I lean toward believing in the supernatural and therefore it not impossible that there is a God after all. That, and the fact that I think the bible is a pretty compelling book.