h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

aye.
the 10 commandments are pretty universal, and provide an obvious guide to things it's better not to do. (oooh, those graven images!) The rest of it, i.e. things not set in stone and open to multitudes of (mis)interpretation, is best left to the individual and not forced on anyone who might have a different understanding of it.

Mandagora. I agree.

A belief in invisible men and/or women living in the sky so that we may justify our continued actions on this planet and simply fulfill our role as humanity? No. We are merely one culture in thousands ... not "advanced", but perhaps mentally damaged.

I'm an animist. How's that?






I might be wrong, but that's my song, so it is written, so it is danced.

"my own view is that cos everything has a cause, the universe must have a cause too - we dont know what it is. it may, or may not be a God. but if it is a God, he does not intervene."-uncle henry

What you've just described is called determinism.

However there is a catch. Because you believe that everything has a cause, than there is no such thing as a first cause, nor is there such a thing as free will.

*arrives on thread a little belatedly*

It seems a little odd that in 124 postings nobody has thought to ask explicitly
1) What do you mean by God?
2) When you say he exists/doesn't exist what do you mean by the term exists?
These may seem like foolishly simple questions, but if by God you mean the Standard Theological Metaphysical Model (incorporeal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc) and by existence you mean that something affects in some way (any way at all) other things that exist, then the STMM is logically at odds with the concept of existing. And if you think otherwise then you mean something different by these terms than I do.
A reflection on the nature of doubt (and therefore of certainty) would also be in order. Why is it that some things are capable only of hypothetical doubt (doubt for the purpose of intellectual exercise), while other things can be genuinely doubted? What makes the difference?

I think there's a very good reason why people haven't asked the question, "what do you mean by 'god', and what do you mean by 'exist'?"

The question, basically, only has three words in it ("Does God Exist?"), and the only one that most people can agree on a definition of would be "Does".

The problems start right there: those who believe in what they call a god don't necessarily define it in the same way as other people who believe in other gods (or come to that, what they call the same god).

All of the above may define "exist" differently from one another.

Then a third group comes along, who don't believe in any gods at all. They have to synthesise for themselves a definition of "god" from the natterings of all the "believers", since lacking belief of their own they have none of what the believers characterise as direct experience of gods. And lacking that direct experience, they lack belief. And so on.

So they look for proof that gods "exist", in the way they understand existence. Sadly, "proof" seems to be another concept for which those with "belief" have wildly differing definitions, often bearing no relation to anything normally denoted by that word. (I've often thought it would be funny to put a Fundamentalist Christian on trial for a capital crime they haven't committed, and put it to them that the text of "Ulysses" by James Joyce is irrefutable *proof* of their guilt, by their OWN STANDARDS AND DEFINITION OF PROOF. I think they just *might* start to complain about saying "proof" is something written in some old book rather than the evidence of reality if put in that situation, but hey, judge not...)

I think the reason nobody asks for strict definitions is that most of us come to conversations with our own definitions and assume that these are the generally accepted ones. Some people may come to a conversation KNOWING that their definition of "god" is different from most people's, and may take care to make this clear from the outset. Others arrogantly assume that since they've seen the light and KNOW things because of divine revelation, they can just start using the language their way and all the benighted heathens just better learn to keep up or burn in hell for all eternity. Whatever.

Others start from the position of assuming the best of people, and when someone says "ah yes, but he didn't die, he lived on for another 930 years" they assume the person is joking, or being ironic, or any number of other things before they come to the conclusion that the speaker honestly believes it to be the literal truth. It can take some time before it is obvious that you're dealing with a person like that. Once it is obvious, niceties like definitions are really irrelevant, since such a person is obviously so detached from reality - often deliberately so - that there really appears to be very little to be gained by talking to them.

As someone else pointed out, they can have nothing useful to say on the subject, since they are manifestly speaking a different language, albeit confusingly using the same words as we do. But there's no point trying to agree definitions with them, any more than there would be any point trying to agree definitions of "yellow" and "blue" with a blind person. Sure, a blind person could hear the phrase "yellow is electromagnetic radiation between x and y nanometres wavelength, and blue is e-m radiation between these two other wavelengths" and understand intellectually that for a sighted person perceiving a difference is possible - but the CONCEPT will mean NOTHING to them.

In exactly the same way, some believers may, possibly, be able to intellectually process the words "does God exist?" as being an interrogative, but the substance of the question will mean nothing to them, and they are incapable of discussing it in any meaningful way or giving a valid answer.

So, in order to have a conversation at all, it's necessary to pretend that we're all speaking the same language (we're not), and that we're all equally capable of thinking about the question (we're not). Otherwise, no discourse is possible.

With most conversations on this site and elsewhere, the slight differences in people's definitions of things can be a slight barrier to communications - e.g. an American may at first be somewhat perturbed if an English correspondent observes that they aren't themselves until they've had their first fag of the day. But in the majority of cases, such linguistic oddities are slight and easily cleared up - it's difficult to picture an American stating outright that "fag" does NOT mean cigarette and never could, say. But that's exactly the attitude you get from believers. This word means this, and nothing else, and can't mean anything else, ever, for anyone.

There are a number of reasons why conversations like this go on so long. Non-believers read the odd statements of those with belief and are amazed that people who clearly have the mental wherewithal to operate a PC with an internet connection apparently manage to also believe, for instance, people can live for 900 years or more. It's a bit like looking at a road accident - the urge is to say "oh, come on, get real - you don't REALLY believe that, do you? You're kidding, right?". Then, when they appear seriously to believe this stuff, you have to ask why? And the answers are often quite entertaining. Also entertaining is watching them trying to defend the more ludicrous inconsistencies, absurdities and just sheer nonsense on which they base their beliefs.

I do know that the VAST majority of "believers" look at most of their book as a fairy story, and when you say "you don't really believe *this*, do you", the answer is usually "well, no, not really, it's an allegory isn't it? It's not meant to be taken literally." Which is fine. I don't take it literally either, why should they? We can all pick and choose which bits of it to take notice of. I personally like to observe the commandment "thou shalt not steal". It's the people who take it all literally who are the odd ones, and if you ask them for their definitions of "god" and "exist", you won't really get anything useful back, so it's best to just try to maximise their entertainment value by, say, pointing them at things like 2Kings2:23-25 and ask them to explain why children who call bald men "bald head" deserve to be disemboweled by bears.

H.

On the ball as usual H., though I had been hoping for the entertainment value of watching someone "explain" why it is impossible to doubt X when it's quite obvious that millions of us have no trouble doubting X at all. But no doubt you're right; the actual question as asked would have been ignored. Unless someone out there is willing to prove me wrong...

Besides, the object of a thread like this isn't for one side to convince the other (can't be done). It's to convince the neutrals and waverers.
Also, as a philosopher, I want to make amends for the role of all too many philosophers, especially "philosophers" of religion, in giving credence to such questions. I mean, there are "philosophers" who think the ontological argument should be taken seriously (though they seem to have taken the Fifth on the nature of necessity). The main function of philosophy is (should be) to show how most philosophical questions are in fact pointless. It's understanding why that constitutes enlightenment.
So I say again. It's not the answer to the question Does God exist? that's wrong. It's the question itself that lacks any content.
But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise IF someone can demonstrate where I'm mistaken. Any takers?

I keep trying to ignore this thread, but it's kind of compulsive. Here's a suggestion, then :

After about three weeks of occasional tinkering, here's my definition of "God" : something humanity can never understand but which is nevertheless necessary to explain the universe.

The question "Does God exist?" is therefore equivalent to the question "Do we need to accept the existence of something beyond human comprehension in order to explain our universe?"

On this version of the question, I find myself at odds with both Hoovooloo (who seems to believe that science will cover it all in the end) and most of the Christians (who seem to think that they "know" God - which I've just deemed impossible)

I'll make a decisive philosophical position out of agnosticism yet!

P.

I wouldn't say that I "believe that science will cover it all in the end". But I *do* think that we will one day achieve what someone taller than me once called "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty".

H.

On a standard use of language you could be talking about the human mind, but not God. Unless you mean understand the existence of the universe. In which case I don't see how it differs from saying We can't explain the existence of the universe. Period.
Necessity and omnipotence are mutually exclusive as explanations.

Yes, that is what I meant. I think it is the same thing, or at least the first part of the same thing.

Now the second part : is it necessary to postulate the existence of some agency to account for this inexplicable phenomemon?

If you say yes, you've accepted the existence of God.
If you say no, you've denied the existence of God.

I'm sure you're going to put me straight on this one too, but this point at least looks fairly clear-cut to me.

P.

If you say yes, the problem is How do you account for this agency?
If you then say you don't have to, or can't, account for this agency then unless the postulation is genuinely explanatory (ie it contains a logical proof that the agency in question could not have failed to create the universe) then you're really back to saying no, there is no need of an explanation. (Or at least to agreeing that no explanation is going to be forthcoming and the existence of the universe is as far back as explanation goes).

You can't account for the agency/God. It surpasses your understanding - that's what makes it God.

It doesn't need to be explanatory, genuinely or otherwise. It stands in place of an explanation. That's what God is, isn't it?

Thinking this way is fundamentally different from the "no" answer. The "no" answer is a conclusion that no mystery exists to explain. The "yes" answer is a conclusion that there is a mystery, and accepts that no explanation is humanly possible.

So what use is a God we can't understand, you might ask? Not a great deal if your looking for a prescriptive saviour, which is of course exactly why religions have anthropomorphised God. There should be some important benefits of believing in such a God, though, such as recognition of the limitations of mankind and respect for the rest of life, the universe and everything.

The no answer is the conclusion that no EXPLICABLE mystery exists to explain. Together with an explanation of why there is no explanation.
Which is pretty much what Hoovooloo said about defined limits to certainty.

Nope. After several attempts and wanders through the backthread, I still don't get the point you're making here...

If the only point of postulating a creator is to explain the universe, then showing that this postulation is not explanatory removes the justification. It's called Ockham's razor.

2,000 years ago, plus, according to the book called the Bible, there was a virgin called Mary gave birth to a son called Jesus. He was God in the likeness of man. The family moved to Nazareth. The next we hear about Jesus is when he was a boy at the temple talking to the high priests. Then he disappears. The next we hear of Jesus is when he is 30 years old being baptized by John the baptist. Then he goes into the wilderness for 40 days, then comes from there and starts to preach. Then he is crucified and is risen from the dead. Three days later he visits his disciples and is then risen into heaven. It says he ascended into heaven and disapeared into a cloud of smoke. Where did he go? At that time people thought heaven was beyond the blue. They also thought the world was flat then, and all the planets went round the earth. Modern technology has changed that. Man has gone out into space and dicovered it goes on for ever and that all our planets go round the sun not the earth. So where are heaven and God? Technology has also discovered that there are 18,000,000 stars to one grain of sand and yet Christians still believe Jesus ascended into heaven. Was the smoke he ascended into from the engine of a spaceship?

A bit ironic to invoke a Franciscan monk to deny the need for God, but let's let that one pass...

I think I get you know, but I don't agree.

is not a fair test.
It's "not explanatory" only in the sense that it can't be explained in terms comprehensible to Man. If you can accept the premise that some things that Man can't understand might just be perfectly real, then you can apply Occam the other way round - if what a God was capable of doing viz-a-viz governing a Universe was explicable in other more mundane terms (accepted Science, for example), then you wouldn't need to postulate God's existence and would discard Him as an unnecessary assumption.

But, on the contrary, Science can't fully explain the Universe, so God has to exist. This is the idea that Hoovooloo found unsatisfactory earlier in the thread, the idea of God existing to account for everything beyond the bounds of scientific knowledge. Sure, it is a bit of a contradiction to acknowledge a God that you're trying to diminish, but how much of a contradiction depends on whether or not you believe that Science will ultimately explain everything.

I happen to believe that Science can never explain everything, and so I have no difficulty in believing in God at this level. God not only exists but will always exist. As Science answers some questions, it uncovers more questions. Man is destined never to know everything.

Of course this leads to a pretty abstract God, one that mainly stands for the idea that Man is limited and should be more careful with his world. Of all the major world religions, I find Buddhism easiest to reconcile. Any religion which proclaims Man as a being in the image of God (thereby deifying ourselves) I find repugnant and indeed downright dangerous.

But I also fear a world of self-assured atheists, because cock-sure humans tend to do such stupid things. That's why I questioned Hoovooloo in the first place. That's why I'd rather believe in a superior entity that somehow judges us, than surrender control to self-avowed "supreme beings" here on earth. Maybe a cop-out, but there you go...

P.

"I'd rather believe in a superior entity that somehow judges us"

This tends to lead to people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions ("if I did bad then God will punish me, but as he hasn't, I must have done good"), because there's very little accountability in relying on God to punish you in the next life, and not much in this one.