1 edit
Originally posted by John W BoothI am still not convinced that you have explained why your belief in a God is OK whereas the belief of other theists is in your opinion not OK simply because their description of God is more intricate than yours. Your main argument seems to be that their description is either made up (which you haven't proved) or unsubstantiated, both of which claims equally apply to your beliefs.
I don't "criticize Christians" per se. If I "criticize" anyone it is fellow theists who resort to making up the aforementioned massively elaborate and sometimes laughably intricate stuff based on speculation and unbridled imagination... communication with God, rules regulations ceremonies procedures, ancient texts, life after death, reincarnation, divin that somehow transpire from, or get piled on top of, their belief that there is a God.
You of course play the 'but their God is bad' card, but I don't buy that argument either.
If I said I believed in a God that was simpler than yours could I equally criticize you?
You keep saying that their God is made up or a result of false beliefs getting added on, but you have not explained how your belief isn't any different. If I say your God is made up, can you prove otherwise? Can you do better than they can at such a defense?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have not said "their God" is made up. I have simply said that they made up layers and layers of utterly unsubstantiated mumbo jumbo "theology" seemingly to keep them busy and make them feel OK about the idea of dying including by way of such things as "certainty" about life after death and a whole load of other things to do with "being good" or "not sinning" including God allegedly approving and disapproving of who they have sex with, and what meats they cannot eat etc. My belief doesn't go anywhere near any of these things in any way whatsoever. So clearly my beliefs are different.
You keep saying that their God is made up or a result of false beliefs getting added on, but you have not explained how your belief isn't any different. If I say your God is made up, can you prove otherwise?
If I say your God is made up, can you prove otherwise?
No. I cannot. And I don't need to or want to. As I said clearly in my OP.
Indeed, if I am wrong about there being a God it will have no impact on me whatsoever.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...more chance than life having originated by chance, which is the equivalent of finding a fully functional jumbo jet, assembled from the parts of a scrap yard, oh . . all by itself! ...”
more chance than life having originated by chance, which is the equivalent of finding a fully functional jumbo jet, assembled from the parts of a scrap yard, oh . . all by itself! The spaghetti Gods are angered Agers me ol son, you need offer up incense to appease them 🙂
The first life (protocell to be more precise) wouldn’t have anything like the same complexity as modern life (and no where near as complex as a “fully functional jumbo jet “ ) and would have been something like nothing more than a very simple microsphere encoding a fragment of simple RNA and no complex proteins nor the more complex DNA etc. experiments that simulate the chemistry of the early Earth have shown how such microspheres can form and, under the right conditions, they MUST have in fact formed! -so science has proved that there is nothing particularly improbable about it.
I have basically already pointed out these facts again and again saying it in various ways -do you just refuse to ever acknowledge what I say?
Originally posted by John W BoothOf course you believe different things than other theists. Nearly every theist has a unique set of beliefs.
So clearly my beliefs are different.
However, the fact remains that you believe in unsubstantiated things, and so do they. So far the only differentiating factors you seem able to point out are:
1. They are wrong.
2. Theirs are more elaborate than yours.
3. You couldn't care less if you are right or wrong.
But you cannot prove 1. and I could equally make the same claim about your beliefs.
If I come up with a simpler God than yours I can claim 2.
And 3. is hardly a reason to feel superior.
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou can of course make that a lot smaller by considering the probability that his parents would have met and had sex to create Robbie (out of a world population of billions), and the probability their parents would have met and had sex to create Robbie's mother and father such that he'd later be born, and then the probability that their parents would have met and had sex to create Robbies grandparents who would then go on to create his mother and father who would then go on to create him, and so on...(noting that for each set of parents the particular sperms have to be chosen so to create the correct offspring as per your argument)
For people who accept evolution Rob, such as myself, it forms the essence of our 'spirituality'. It is the explanation of how we came to be. Your rejection of it is nothing more than an argumentum ad consequentiam, you don't like the consequences so you reject the premise.
I see you like constantly talking about odds, so let's work out the odd ...[text shortened]... 100 million)^200...or 1/10^1600
That's incredibly small odds yet you are here. Amazing.
Also we have to consider the probabilities that each person in his lineage would have chosen activities and accumulated the experiences and worldviews such that they were attractive to the other person in more than a physical sense (so as not to be passed up in favour of some other person); we also have to consider the probabilities they would recover from or avoid serious injuries or ailments (or death!) before giving birth to the closer line of ancestors to Robbie.
Indeed, I think you can take that exponent of 1600 and put quite a few more zeros at the end of it (just in case 10^-1600 isn't quite small enough ).
Originally posted by AgergIf robbies parents weren't born, what is the probability that robbie was to be born?
You can of course make that a lot smaller by considering the probability that his parents would have met and had sex to create Robbie (out of a world population of billions), and the probability their parents would have met and had sex to create Robbie's mother and father such that he'd later be born, and then the probability that their parents would have met ...[text shortened]... ut quite a few more zeros at the end of it (just in case 10^-1600 isn't quite small enough ).
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat's what I'm getting at (only I'm working in the other direction, as does Proper Knob, to achieve a similar silly probability for his existence to highlight the flaw in his reasoning). Indeed, for Robbie to have been born, we necessarily require that his parents were born and we also require their parents were born etc... Clearly had any of these parents failed to have been born then Robbie wouldn't be here today. At each branch in his ancestry we (adopting the reasoning that Robbie does) have to multiply each probability his nth-grandparents would have been born (both sets of them - one for mother, the other for father) by the probability his (n+1)th-grandparents would have been born, and so on... When you factor in other events which had to occur in order that we finally arrive at a successful birth of Robbie Carrobie we see we have a stupidly small probability of this event happening.
If robbies parents weren't born, what is the probability that robbie was to be born?
Nonetheless this event still happened though! Now either we can argue that an immortal cupid was pulling the strings all along to guarantee Robbie would eventually be born or we can conclude it's a silly argument based on the fact it is nonsensical to assume this particular state of events *had* to happen in the first place (ie: what if Rachel Carrobie, or Robbie Carrotty was born instead?) and throw out any other arguments of the same style - i.e. The improbability of universe taking the form it has now implies God (since if another universe had happened it would simply not be us (if anyone) talking about it)!
Originally posted by twhiteheadI haven't claimed to "feel superior".
Of course you believe different things than other theists. Nearly every theist has a unique set of beliefs.
However, the fact remains that you believe in unsubstantiated things, and so do they. So far the only differentiating factors you seem able to point out are:
1. They are wrong.
2. Theirs are more elaborate than yours.
3. You couldn't care less i ...[text shortened]... me up with a simpler God than yours I can claim 2.
And 3. is hardly a reason to feel superior.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBecause there is absolutely no reason to think that they are true and they strike me as completely counter-intuitive. I said nothing about "frowning" and nothing about "their God is bad". I mentioned the instances of religion because my thread is called "I am theist" but I don't believe that any of the religious speculation attendant has anything to do with God and is instead simply information about what people say to each other in religious or cultural contexts.
You specifically pointed to instances of religion that most people would frown upon. Your only possible motive for them singling them out is to play the 'their God is bad' card. If you deny it, then why did you mention them?
If I enjoy a beer, and the beer is enjoyed by others too, but those others tell me that I could not possibly enjoy that beer unless I wear red pantaloons, when that is quite clearly untrue because I do enjoy the beer without wearing the red pantaloons, why should I give any credence to those people's theory about the relationship between enjoying the beers and wearing the red pantaloons, when wearing the red pantaloons is clearly just something those people have simply decided to do (together) when they drink beer and has nothing to do with the beer itself?
Me wearing or not wearing the red pantaloons has got nothing to do with saying those other people are bad or about me feeling "superior" or "frowning", but it does indicate that my beliefs about enjoying the beer are different from theirs and that my beliefs are related only to the beer whereas their beliefs about the beer hinge upon the red pantaloons because they cannot enjoy the beer without wearing them and do not understand how others can enjoy the beer without wearing them. If I do choose to wear the red pantaloons it will be because of my desire to do the same thing as them - and will therefore be about my relationship with those people - and not anything to do with the beer itself or my enjoyment of the beer.
Originally posted by John W Booth"...but I don't believe that any of the religious speculation attendant has anything to do with God..."
Because there is absolutely no reason to think that they are true and they strike me as completely counter-intuitive. I said nothing about "frowning" and nothing about "their God is bad". I mentioned the instances of religion because my thread is called "I am theist" but I don't believe that any of the religious speculation attendant has anything to do ...[text shortened]... se people - and not anything to do with the beer itself or my enjoyment of the beer.
So then what do you know about God and how do you know it?