The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

[Animavore]

That Freeman Dyson quote reminds me of The Simpsons when the judge ruled science and religion to keep no less than 50 feet between them.

There's more than one scientist wrote a book claiming physics proves god.

[Animavore]

Are you thinking of John Polkinghorne?

[Pappa]

Are you thinking of John Polkinghorne?

No, I was reading about him earlier. I don't think he's the guy. The guy I'm trying to remember was written about quite a bit in the New Scientist 3-4 years ago.

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually, the problem is that you have exactly zero information or evidence either for or against the existence of God, which makes your beliefs a matter of moronic religious faith

No such thing as evidence against the existance of anything and nor is it required or useful

And that's precisely why Atheist claims that God does not exist are fallacious, irrational and illogical.

Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

If your logic was anything other than pure sophistry, it would mean that your own claim that atheism is fallacious, irrational and illogical is fallacious, irrational and illogical.

Seth, you keep asking for critically robust evidence from others.

For the nth time..... Where is the criticAlly robust evidence for the existence of god?

You rject atheism because you say you think that you havent seen critically robust evidence for it. Do you likewise reject theism since you never provide, ever, any critically robust evidence for it.

Stop the sophistry and evasion. Do you have critically robust evidence, or not?

[Svartalf]

Actually, Seth is evidence against god, if there was one, it would be offended and Seth would get smoted.

[Blind groper]

As I said before, when you talk of "God" as a vague, ambiguous entity, you cannot offer evidence for or against.

You need to nail down what this "God" actually is. Once you have a detailed model, you can start looking at how to test the model.

Some models, of course, are untestable. If this "God" is an entity that is powerful, but exists somewhere else, and has not the faintest interest in humans, then we cannot test for it. Nor does it matter, because such a deity, in the human picture, affects us in exactly the same way as a mythological deity that actually does not exist.

My view is that this kind of debate is meaningless as long as the "God" is not defined.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Actually, Seth is evidence against god, if there was one, it would be offended and Seth would get smoted.

This is why I've got him on ignore, and am happier.

[Svartalf]

So do I

[JimC]

Pappa wrote:

But as I said above, I think Freeman Dyson is approaching the idea of religion from a different perspective to where most atheists would approach it. He sees the social and personal value of the belief system, regardless of whether the deity exists.

Actually, I think quite a few atheists can take that position, at least to a degree. It would be a little silly to look at religions as never having some positive effects, on either individuals or societies. The questions that remain are whether the good outweighs the bad, and whether some non-religious ethical system could produce the useful effects without the trappings of superstition.

[Seth]

Actually, the problem is that you have exactly zero information or evidence either for or against the existence of God, which makes your beliefs a matter of moronic religious faith

No such thing as evidence against the existance of anything and nor is it required or useful

And that's precisely why Atheist claims that God does not exist are fallacious, irrational and illogical.

Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

If your logic was anything other than pure sophistry, it would mean that your own claim that atheism is fallacious, irrational and illogical is fallacious, irrational and illogical.

Seth, you keep asking for critically robust evidence from others.

For the nth time..... Where is the criticAlly robust evidence for the existence of god?

For the N2 time, I'm not making any claim that God or gods exist, therefore I have no burden to provide such evidence.

You rject atheism because you say you think that you havent seen critically robust evidence for it. Do you likewise reject theism since you never provide, ever, any critically robust evidence for it.

My beliefs are not under examination, yours are.

Stop the sophistry and evasion. Do you have critically robust evidence, or not?

I make no claims either for or against theism. I merely analyze YOUR (as in "you Atheists") claims and the strength of your reasoning and logic...which is small and faulty.

[Seth]

As I said before, when you talk of "God" as a vague, ambiguous entity, you cannot offer evidence for or against.

You need to nail down what this "God" actually is. Once you have a detailed model, you can start looking at how to test the model.

Some models, of course, are untestable. If this "God" is an entity that is powerful, but exists somewhere else, and has not the faintest interest in humans, then we cannot test for it. Nor does it matter, because such a deity, in the human picture, affects us in exactly the same way as a mythological deity that actually does not exist.

My view is that this kind of debate is meaningless as long as the "God" is not defined.

Yup. And therefore proclamations that God does not exist commonly made by Atheists are meaningless, irrational, illogical blather, which is exactly my point.

[Blind groper]

Yup. And therefore proclamations that God does not exist commonly made by Atheists are meaningless, irrational, illogical blather, which is exactly my point.

I cannot argue with that. I take it you would also agree that theist statements that "God" does exist are equally meaningless, irrational, illogical blather?

Most of us, who argue about the existence or non existence of "God" are thinking of the Christian model of deity. My view is that the model of a deity which is omnipotent, omniscient, and a loving parent to humanity is incompatible with the world today, in which millions of total innocents die in agony, and where billons of those much loved 'children' of the deity are consigned to an eternity of agony in hell. Therefore I conclude that the Christian model of deity is very, very improbable. would you agree with that?

[Svartalf]

Well, if "God" (as in the Hebrew El-YHWH) exists, that thing sure as Sheol does not conform to the dogma preached about it, and does not deserve the worship of decent people.
At any rate, even if supernatural intelligences exist, they seem to have such an influence on our world that they are a null factor in the equation of real life.

[Seth]

Yup. And therefore proclamations that God does not exist commonly made by Atheists are meaningless, irrational, illogical blather, which is exactly my point.

I cannot argue with that. I take it you would also agree that theist statements that "God" does exist are equally meaningless, irrational, illogical blather?

Not quite. Religion has substantial positive social utility, whether the beliefs are true or not. It makes people happy and helps them get through their lives, and it does much good in the world. Therefore, unlike atheism, with stand for nothing and does nothing positive, it has meaning, is not really irrational because it's an adaptive evolutionary survival trait, and it's logical because it provides positive individual and social benefits.

Most of us, who argue about the existence or non existence of "God" are thinking of the Christian model of deity.

Of course they are, because they are militant, intolerant anti-Christian bigot Atheists, not really people who have "no belief" in God.

My view is that the model of a deity which is omnipotent, omniscient, and a loving parent to humanity is incompatible with the world today, in which millions of total innocents die in agony, and where billons of those much loved 'children' of the deity are consigned to an eternity of agony in hell. Therefore I conclude that the Christian model of deity is very, very improbable. would you agree with that?

Well, as I understand it, temporal suffering combined with faith in God and acceptance of Jesus as your personal savior means that no matter how bad it gets here (because of Satan) your eternal soul will live happily in heaven with God after you die...forever...for eternity. Comparatively speaking, the three score and ten years you suffer here are like walking through a hot parking lot on the way to an air-conditioned restaurant...it's all very short-lived and temporary compared to what's in store for the faithful.

Oh, and people aren't "consigned" to hell, they consign THEMSELVES to the eternal torment of not being in the presence of God by rejecting Jesus' salvation.

So, however improbable it may be that the Christian God exists, eternity is a hell of a long time, and since the price of salvation is small, as Pascal said, it might be worth it to believe, particularly when it costs you nothing at all to do so.

But that's just one view.

[Pappa]

Seth, re: the religion makes people happy bit. It's not quite true. On average religious people are more happy than non-religious people, but only in countries where religion is dominant. The opposite is true where it is not. Also, a person with few friends in a religious community is less happy than an average atheist from the same country. Basically, it's not religion that makes people happy, but feeling they belong to a community. There was an excellent article in the Scientific American Psychology supplement about it a month or so ago which drilled down through a huge set of data on the subject.