Drange's argument from nonbelief

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
" that would indicate that his proiorities are lacking or impaired, especially to the extent that he values his creatures being in a position of responsibly accepting or rejecting a relationship with him."
he wants us to accept or reject him of our own free will. if he shows up in front of you and asks you whether you choose to believe in him or not, wha ...[text shortened]... tually address my question."
oh yes, the unsupported statement. nice debating bro. very nice.

so why is knowing god's existence important then?

I never said it was. You said having evidence to the point of knowledge would undermine faith. I say to that: so what? The sort of 'faith' you're talking about is just belief that fails to be justified.

Originally posted by LemonJello

so why is knowing god's existence important then?

I never said it was. You said having evidence to the point of knowledge would undermine faith. I say to that: so what? The sort of 'faith' you're talking about is just belief that fails to be justified.

you are under the false assumption that god, if he exists, must jump through hoops to get our attention. that a supreme being, should it exist, should work his schedule to fit our needs.


we believe he did show himself before jesus. i believe he might have shown himself through mohammed, through buddha. you complain that for over one thousand since then, he didn't see fit to show himself to anyone else.

does the CEO of a multi billion dollar corporation show himself to every worker on the assembly line? if the worker only sees his direct boss, how does he know the CEO exists, especially if he only does his work through intermediaries and doesn't show his face in public? don't the workers have to take his existence more or less for granted? (before you get rude, yes, i am perfectly aware this isn't exactly the same thing, and no, i don't believe this to be proof of god's existence)

so if you do not demand that CEO to come and meed every worker, why do you demand the supreme being the same thing?

Originally posted by LemonJello

he wants us to accept or reject him of our own free will. if he shows up in front of you and asks you whether you choose to believe in him or not, what choice is that?

The mere belief that He exists (which is predominantly NOT within the active control of the believer) is but a precursor to the actual volitional decision regarding whet ...[text shortened]... t a matter of choice on the part of the believer. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion.

Your suggesting otherwise is patently absurd.
we are talking philosophy, without any proof to support either of our stances. please be decent and abstain from such rudeness and i will do the same. just because i hold a different stance than you doesn't make it absurd.

it is one thing for god to show himself to buddha, or to mohammed, and then you CHOOSE to believe what they say about god, or not. and it is another thing entirely to have been implanted with the belief in god. where is the choice? in the first place you could review what mohammed says and decide that after all, it doesn't compute. you could read what dawkins thinks about the issue and reevaluate that notion. if god implants that belief in you, you haven't reached it of your own free will. it is no more related to free will than "choosing" to breathe.


"Belief formation is predominantly not a matter of choice on the part of the believer."
"being brainwashed" like you choose to believe spiritual education goes on, is still a matter of choice. yes, sometimes belief is being inserted into the subject more forcefully. but still, the subject chooses everyday to continue believing. subject rjhinds refuses to understand evolution and everything being related to it. he may falsely believe god will smite him down, he may have false information on which he bases his choices. but they are still his choices. it is a conscious decision to ignore scientific fact.


"Perhaps this is the source of your confusion."
yes, it is often the case that people having different beliefs than yourself are confused. that they simply need to wake up and they will see the truth. your truth.

this mind set leaves you unwilling to change. you argue from a position of being right with the purpose of making me see your position. i argue each of your points as they come along if i find something to argue about.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you are under the false assumption that god, if he exists, must jump through hoops to get our attention. that a supreme being, should it exist, should work his schedule to fit our needs.


we believe he did show himself before jesus. i believe he might have shown himself through mohammed, through buddha. you complain that for over one thousand since the ...[text shortened]... and that CEO to come and meed every worker, why do you demand the supreme being the same thing?

Well maybe because of those pesky little details about your analogies being entirely
different things...

Firstly, a CEO is simply a regular every day person who is in a position of power.

Companies often have CEO's, it's an entirely ordinary occurrence which requires
very little evidence. And for which we have quite large amounts of evidence, even
without a personal visit from the CEO.

Also it's often not entirely important that employee's in a big company know anything about
the CEO who owns/runs it. They need to know what the corporate policies are, and
they need to know what their job is and how to do it... But they could go through their
entire career's and never know who the CEO is [or care] and never need to.

Also, generally speaking, if you don't like the CEO of a company or the job you are doing
you can leave and go some-place else for employment. And many people do.


On the other hand, if the bible god were real:
The bible god apparently requires each and every person to believe that it exists.
And to follow a set of rules of behaviour and thought where failure to do so results in a severe
punishment... with a 'reward' for those who do comply.
There is no opting out of having the bible god or following the 'rules' it lays down.

So it is important to know if the bible god exists and what the 'rules' it wants to impose
on us all are.

And it's also an extraordinary claim that a god exists. We observe vast amounts of the universe
acting dumbly according to laws of physics, and have no observations of the universe acting
like it's being controlled by an intelligent super-being. We don't observe gods wandering around
like we observe CEO's.

And as such, this claim that the bible god exists requires vastly more evidence than the existence
of CEO's does.


Because the bible god requires that we each follow it's rules and worship it, it is thus incumbent
upon that god to provide evidence sufficient for us to be able to justifiably believe that it exists
AND to provide clear and unambiguous means for us to know what the rules are it wants us to follow.

What we then do with that information is up to us.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Your suggesting otherwise is patently absurd.
we are talking philosophy, without any proof to support either of our stances. please be decent and abstain from such rudeness and i will do the same. just because i hold a different stance than you doesn't make it absurd.

it is one thing for god to show himself to buddha, or to mohammed, and then you CHOOS ...[text shortened]... our position. i argue each of your points as they come along if i find something to argue about.

When people say that they can choose their beliefs it puts me in mind of discussions
about sexual orientation.

There was a great response in a paper recently [In an advice column] to a parent
who was angry at their son who was apparently gay, which they believed to be a
choice and that he was only being gay to spite them.
The columnist responded by suggesting that they demonstrate how easy it was to
change your sexual orientation by becoming gay themselves just to show how it was
done.


In general people can't change their sexual orientation [although peoples sexual orientation
can change] and can't choose who they find sexually attractive.

This does not however violate their free will, even though in the case were god creates
everyone individually this orientation would have been implanted intentionally by god.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well maybe because of those pesky little details about your analogies being [b]entirely
different things...

Firstly, a CEO is simply a regular every day person who is in a position of power.

Companies often have CEO's, it's an entirely ordinary occurrence which requires
very little evidence. And for which we have quite large amounts of evid ...[text shortened]... what the rules are it wants us to follow.

What we then do with that information is up to us.[/b]

Companies often have CEO's, it's an entirely ordinary occurrence which requires very little evidence. And for which we have quite large amounts of evidence, even without a personal visit from the CEO.

kind of like god because i choose to consider the evidence for god as presented so far is enough.


Also it's often not entirely important that employee's in a big company know anything about the CEO who owns/runs it.
kinda like god. we don't really need to know exactly how god is designed, how he works, etc. you have one job, and that is to live your life. you will be briefed further after on a need to know basis.

"Also, generally speaking, if you don't like the CEO of a company or the job you are doing you can leave and go some-place else for employment. And many people do."
kinda like faith. we call those people atheists.


"On the other hand, if the bible god were real:"
i am not arguing in favor of the bible god. i don't believe in the bible god. i am arguing in favor of God.

"Because the bible god requires that we each follow it's rules and worship it"
i don't believe the supreme being is so insecure and so shallow as to require worship from his creation. if we make AI, we would require it to be intelligent, to have an honest conversation with it. AI worshiping us would be boring.

Originally posted by googlefudge
When people say that they can choose their beliefs it puts me in mind of discussions
about sexual orientation.

There was a great response in a paper recently [In an advice column] to a parent
who was angry at their son who was apparently gay, which they believed to be a
choice and that he was only being gay to spite them.
The columnist responde ...[text shortened]... creates
everyone individually this orientation would have been implanted intentionally by god.

where do we draw the line? how do we define free will?

if genetically engineer a baby to crave chocolate, is it breaking that child's free will? if we subsequently restrict more and more choices so that each directive is embedded into the being of the subject, what would be left to that person to choose?
if we create someone that only wants to knit all day long as a personal need, will he have free will just because he would be free to choose the color of the threads?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Companies often have CEO's, it's an entirely ordinary occurrence which requires very little evidence. And for which we have quite large amounts of evidence, even without a personal visit from the CEO.

kind of like god because i choose to consider the evidence for god as presented so far is enough.


Also it's often not entirely important that employe ...[text shortened]... it to be intelligent, to have an honest conversation with it. AI worshiping us would be boring.

What god?

What evidence?

Originally posted by googlefudge
What god?

What evidence?

so i guess you will be leaving the company and seek something that suits your needs.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so i guess you will be leaving the company and seek something that suits your needs.

Well no, because if this god is real, then it is not possible to 'leave the company'. Whether you believe in the god or not, it is still real and the penalties for non-belief in it are also real.

Therefore it is unreasonable for such a god, if it exists and if it really does enforce those punishments for non-belief, to not provide adequate evidence for belief in it.

There clearly is not adequate evidence for belief in it, since there is huge disagreement among us as to whether it exists. Even different sects within the Christian religion disagree on the nature of this god and its rules, let alone all the other religions.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you are under the false assumption that god, if he exists, must jump through hoops to get our attention. that a supreme being, should it exist, should work his schedule to fit our needs.


we believe he did show himself before jesus. i believe he might have shown himself through mohammed, through buddha. you complain that for over one thousand since the ...[text shortened]... and that CEO to come and meed every worker, why do you demand the supreme being the same thing?

you are under the false assumption that god, if he exists, must jump through hoops to get our attention. that a supreme being, should it exist, should work his schedule to fit our needs.

No, I am under the assumption, for the express purpose of argument, that God is such that it is His design intention that His human creatures be on the whole in a position to freely decide whether or not to relate with Him. Do you agree with this assumption, or not? If not, then just say so and disregard this problem of ignorance on the grounds that the God it is talking about does not square with reality. If you do agree with the assumption, then let's continue.

From there, a further contention would be that for His human creatures to be on the whole in a position to freely decide whether or not to relate with Him, it is requisite that these creatures on the whole have the belief that He exists in the first place. This seems pretty obvious to me: one cannot freely deliberate in any genuine manner about whether or not to relate with X if one does not even think X exists in the first place; if one does not even take a relationship with X to be a live option in the first place. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, state your reasons why. If not, then we can continue...

we believe he did show himself before jesus. i believe he might have shown himself through mohammed, through buddha. you complain that for over one thousand since then, he didn't see fit to show himself to anyone else.

Do me a favor and stick to what I actually say...you know, follow the arguments faithfully as opposed to making crap up and attributing it to me.

does the CEO of a multi billion dollar corporation show himself to every worker on the assembly line?

Is it the CEO's design intention to relate on some intimate level with every worker? Seriously, try sticking to the actual argument....

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Your suggesting otherwise is patently absurd.
we are talking philosophy, without any proof to support either of our stances. please be decent and abstain from such rudeness and i will do the same. just because i hold a different stance than you doesn't make it absurd.

it is one thing for god to show himself to buddha, or to mohammed, and then you CHOOS ...[text shortened]... our position. i argue each of your points as they come along if i find something to argue about.

it is one thing for god to show himself to buddha, or to mohammed, and then you CHOOSE to believe what they say about god, or not. and it is another thing entirely to have been implanted with the belief in god. where is the choice?

Again, belief is predominantly not choice based. When did you make a conscious choice to believe your spouse exists?

if god implants that belief in you, you haven't reached it of your own free will. it is no more related to free will than "choosing" to breathe.

You don't reach it of your own free will, anyway. So, what's the problem here?

but still, the subject chooses everyday to continue believing.

So you continue to choose to believe everyday that your spouse exists?

Originally posted by LemonJello

it is one thing for god to show himself to buddha, or to mohammed, and then you CHOOSE to believe what they say about god, or not. and it is another thing entirely to have been implanted with the belief in god. where is the choice?

Again, belief is predominantly not choice based. When did you make a conscious choice to believe your spou ...[text shortened]... nue believing.[/quote]

So you continue to choose to believe everyday that your spouse exists?

Amazing how many people hold to the position that belief is something you choose.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Amazing how many people hold to the position that belief is something you choose.

Yeah, I agree.

On some level it's probably a bit scary to recognize how little doxastic control one has. To the extent that one's beliefs play a large role in who she or he is, that means we do not have much control to that extent over who we are. One of the things I am very interested in studying is in what ways (what available channels and to what extent) one can control who he or she is, as it regards noetic structure and dispositional sets.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so i guess you will be leaving the company and seek something that suits your needs.

Well I have never believed in gods, and never been a member of a church or religion.

So in that sense I have never BEEN in the company...

However if there is an afterlife the nature of which is determined by a god's whim whether
I like it or not... Then I can't "leave the company".


However you did not answer the questions.

What god?

What evidence?