The existence of alternative explanations (even if there are many of them) isn't actually an argument, especially when all of those other explanations boil down to little more than the assertion that the other person is simply deluded or misinterpreting information.

Both sentences are false. You are putting yourself as the authority on interpreting information by asserting nothing more than your own perspective as supposedly overriding his (and all others who believe differently than you).

The second sentence is false and ironic. The evidence is clear that you're asserting a position of special authority in interpreting information. There's a distinction between "I do not find this evidence compelling" and "This evidence is not compelling." The irony is that you seem to struggle at all times with presenting a meaningful representation of others (see for example, your perspective on the appropriate way to interpret religious texts and anything pertaining to what religious parents do).

Unfortunately, what you "know" about cognitive biases is false. This reminds me of the paper you once cited about health food that made no claims that remotely resembled what you said it did. You are not as knowledgeable with information as you believe you are, and it causes you to make bad arguments as above. Cognitive biases do more commonly lean towards or away from truth. It's just that when they lean towards truth you tend to overlook them and believe that it's the result of a solid rational thought (and this mischaracterization is itself a cognitive bias commonly known around poker as "results oriented thinking.")

And the mere existence of biases is not sufficient on its own to cast reasonable doubt.

There are many times that there is only a single witness to an event. And many times that single witness is sufficient to cause other circumstantial evidence to carry the day and create a conviction. I'm not sure that your understanding of the nature of law is up to par, either.

It's strange how after all of your argumentation and pretending that you know what you're talking about that you conclude your post with the bandwagon fallacy. You're not making an appeal to that in the argument, but you should know that pointing this out does not enhance your argument in any way, and this is really bad for someone who likes to call out fallacies.

I thought the vast majority of people on this planet do believe in the God of the OT, which then divided up to the 3 major sects, fwiw.

eh...maybe not with hindus/buddists, and atheists in china?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...us_populations

Not a vast majority, but a slim majority. But given that the structure of MB's argument assumes that there is only one witness, he has positioned himself to construct the argument around a narrower definition of Naked_Rectitude's understanding of God. Of course, admitting that there are billions of adherents means that there are more witnesses than just one, but those are the sorts of things MB doesn't think about when building his arguments.

Edit: As an aside, thinking about Chinese "atheism" is very different from thinking about Chinese religion. The Chinese folk religions are atheistic but they are still religions that believe in spiritual beings and such.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/co...-argument/#5.6
5.6 Personal Explanation
Finally, something needs to be said about statement 4, which asserts that the cause of the universe is personal. Defenders of the cosmological argument suggest two possible kinds of explanation. Natural explanation is provided in terms of precedent events, causal laws, or necessary conditions that invoke natural existents. Personal explanation is given “in terms of the intentional action of a rational agent” (Swinburne, 1979, 20). We have seen that one cannot provide a natural causal explanation for the initial event, for there are no precedent events or natural existents to which the laws of physics apply. The line of scientific explanation runs out at the initial singularity, and perhaps even before we arrive at the singularity (at 10−35 seconds). If no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the explanation must be personal, that is, in terms of the intentional action of an intelligent, supernatural agent.

The majority of people on this planet don't even believe in the Christian version of god, let alone have a literal biblical interpretation that includes the OT. Most Christians cherry pick which bits are literal and which are metaphorical and most don't use a literal interpretation which pretty much rules out the OT, otherwise they have a ton of problems to resolve.

I think metaphors are helpful and perhaps God does too, and it's true that things can get confusing for the cognitively imperfect (~everyone).

And yes, Christians have a ton of problems to resolve.

Just fyi, neither the Cosmological nor "Irreducible Complexity" are a priori arguments. I also think you are wrong, and rather obviously so based on the amount of attention that has been given to them by philosophers, about the value of these arguments.

Oh the irony.

Very sophisticated.

Not planning on posting much in RGT, but ignoring you seems the best course from here.

Good luck, you'll need it when you wake up.


That's it? This is untrue? Any explanation or should I take your word for it?

Very sophisticated.

Ahh, so using your logic Moses never climbed down from a mountain carrying stone disks with words from god on it. Or am I doing something wrong? Who decides which story is to be taken literally and which not?

You can't have both, you know. god is either an entity you can interact with or he is the protagonist of a huge fairytale.

Very sophisticated.

Everything you do is commenting on the year i chose instead replying to the semantics of the sentence which where "god has not shown himself for at least a 1000 years (you will claim he showed himself to single persons, but we both know that's utter nonsense)"

Very sophisticated.

Also, why do you assume I am looking for any god?

Very sophisticated.


God is love? Really?

Very sophisticated.

Bad generalization from me, that's right. But there still are masses of people who exactly think like I stated.

I don't care about religious writings of any kind, paul probably never existed in the way described in the bible, same goes for jesus and the whole rest of the gang.

So citing stuff you knew I would not care about is very sophisticated.

Agreed,but why would I need an angry judge dredd style sadist, sitting in my back, judging and threatening me with eternal pain?

But what's wrong in considering the possibility that once your life is over, it's over, you simply return to the state you where in before your birth. Boom, no higher meaning , no afterlife or anything.

Starting to sweat yet?

Must mean your lifetime is incredibly precious and you guys spend it chasing and citing fairytales.

But that's not my problem, you are free to do anything you want (no jugde, remember?) as long as you are willing to take the consequences of your actions.

It gets problematic at the point where you people try to sell your garbage fairytales to innocent children who never have a chance of making up their own mind and choose their own way of handling the important questions about life.

Religion has been a huge moneymaker in the middle ages but fortunately it's not that easy anymore to scare people out of their money with unproven claims.


@Louis: I try to keep it simple. Looks like most people here don't like it simple, more like they try to look "sophisticated"

OK, I'll take your word for it but I thought that they were reasoned from theoretical deduction, they're not empirical, and that made them a priori.

I never actually mentioned a value, I simply said that they boiled down to 'what else could it be', in a very sophisticated way of course and I completely understand that they deserve attention.

Rig Astley: With all due respect, I'm not sure why you expect sophisticated responses to your fairly vague rant. I'm happy to try to delve deeper on any of these subjects, but I'm fairly sure that there is a disconnect between the idea of religion that you have and are attacking and the view that I have and would want to defend.

You are also intent on being polemical in a way that makes me doubt there's a lot of room for dialogue. For example, I never claimed to have said anything sophisticated. You wrote "No info on God is obtainable". Not exactly a comprehensively argued claim, and a fairly generic one. I said that your comments suggest to me that you are looking for the wrong sort of "info", in the wrong way. You come back with some snark about taking my word for it. The answer to which is: No of course not, any more than I take your word. I don't expect this is a subject that can be adequately covered in a few sentences, or even a few books. I attempted to start a conversation.

Even discounting personal experience, you will find any number of claims to revelations of the Divine in the last 1000 years. I can't provide a comprehensive list. Things like apparitions of Mary in catholic tradition spring to mind. I'm sure there are others.

Beyond that though, this goes back to the disconnect I was talking about between the view you have of how God is supposed to have been involved in the ancient world compared to the lack of evidence of similar occurrences today. I don't actually have a well developed opinion on how to decide on which biblical events literally happened or not because it turns out that's not that important to me, and in any event it's unknowable and unprovable. What I am interested in is the experience of God in the present, and to the extent that I express belief in things like the physical resurrection of Jesus, or the burning bush and Moses' theophany, it is not because of historical evidence or the biblical account anyway, but because of my experiences in the present. That is why I suggest that your method of "obtaining info" is wrong.

I would quibble with "God is an entity" as a matter of theology, but leaving that aside I would suggest that God is both a reality you can interact with and the protagonist of a huge fairytale. Or many fairytales even. Maybe the word mythology would be better. Fairy tales are a fairly intriguing and deep thing that humans do.

It's going to be difficult for you to understand what motivates religious people if you don't care what they have to say about their own religious experience and understanding. This very post is a "religious writing". Of dubious merit probably, but nonetheless. I also had no idea what your interest was. You did bother to post in RGT, so I assume it is not nothing. In any case, I referenced the history of religious writing only to support my assertion that your characterization of fear of death was wrong, which I think you've agreed to. We agree that some people are motivated by fear of death, but that fear of death is an inadequate explanation for the way of life and beliefs of religious people more generally.

This is not my experience, which is one reason I am something of a universalist. It is of course undeniable that the Bible suggests the existence of hell, although I'm not sure its at all as straightforward as you might think. It also suggests that in the end God will be all in all. My experience at least pushes me towards the latter.

I read posts on 2+2, across a bunch of different subforums, and it's not an infrequent event that someone makes some general comment about the idiocy of religious people. It's always a bit surreal for me, just because there is some fashion in which I agree with some of the comments a lot of the time. I get frustrated with lots of religious people. But it's also surreal because you guys always seem so self-assured that you understand religion so completely, and yet the characterizations never have anything to do with who I am, how I feel, what I think, or what I do. And it's not just me. For all of our many faults, you don't really understand religious people very well at all.

Precisely, these are subjective interpretations, which is why I don't criticize anyone for their beliefs, including you.

There are MANY reasons why I believe in God, it's not JUST my personal experience, perhaps this was the catalyst, but by no means is this the only reason. I happen to think the ex-nihilo problem is best solved by God, for instance, to me God existing is more logical than no God existing.

Hmmm, you sure seem to be talking an authoritative stance on the evidence for God being poor. You not only rejected my explanations as "poor" but other popular arguments for God. I can accept you voicing your opinion, but you seem to do more than that, by stating outright that any reasons for believing in God are unsatisfactory.

Is your argument that you don't find the evidence compelling, or, that the evidence is not compelling?

"Reasonable doubt" is fine, I accept that, what I don't accept is "necessarily false".

It's relevant because you dismiss them objectively. You seem to now be suggesting that you're only voicing your personal opinion, but then you should accept that these arguments have some merit to those who believe they do.

Again, there are many reasons why I am a theist, I believe God is a better explanation, for one. What I won't do is criticize those that don't see it that way, because these are just subjective interpretations. Not sure if you followed Susmario's thread, but duffee articulated what I thought was a great argument for God, but Uke did not agree. Does one need to be right, and the other wrong? I don't believe so.

Not sure what the point of your last paragraph was, I'll leave that alone.

They are empirical--that is, they rely on empirically justified premises.

Also, in the very next sentence after referring to these arguments you said: "A million reasons and justifications and not one of them worth the time it took me to type this when judged by impartial, logical and rigorous standards." That is putting a very low value on these arguments.

Obviously I'm not referring to the governments they were under when they became slaves for forsaking the law, or the variations that resulted from breaking Deut 4:2 which resulted in the curses of Deut ch 28, but rather the government that God prescribed.

Read Exodus, Numbers, and especially Deuteronomy and start to conceptualize the prescribed government. There are plenty of laws pertaining to agriculture/economy, foreign relations, divisions of land, inheritance, cancelled debts, and so on.

The original claim was that theists believe in God because they fear death. This is an extremely shallow view of religion, and people in general.

This argument also cuts both ways, you can claim people don't believe in God because they don't want to adhere to any tenets. There is no reason this should only apply to a specific type of belief (theism).

While this may apply to some beliefs, to generalize in this way is not helpful, and it creates an unnecessary "us" and "them". "They" are theists because they engage in fallacious thinking, while "we" do not. It's a fairly shallow argument, especially when declared as an absolute.

But there's not really a "prescribed government" in those books. I guess that's where you're losing me. Yes, there are laws and rules and that sort of thing, but that's completely different from saying that you have a "government."

It's also not clear what "the alternative" refers to. You seem to be using it as an unspecified other, but that doesn't really show that this was in fact better than other structures that existed at the time.

Indeed.

I don't see your distinction.

Meaning, as opposed to more oppressive governments such as the U.S. government with its laws at statutes. Yes, obviously the comparative work now needs to be done...

Wow, it's almost like people's beliefs are massively influenced by their upbringing and culture.. Amazing how they all grow to learn that 'their' god is the right one.. That was lucky!

People could be said to be living by the OT Law at a time when the Jewish "nation" was really a loose collection of small communities, and the same can be said when they were under the rule of a king. I don't see how a system of rules interacting certain types of behaviors really counts as establishing a "government."

Right. The basic assertion is that governmental structure X is better other potential governmental structures Y, and this is a sufficient reason for Z.

absolutely. I know this was a topic some time ago in RGT in some other thread but I can't recall anyone really arguing the opposite

Wow, it's almost like your beliefs were massively influenced by your upbringing and culture.. Amazing how you grew to learn that 'your' concept of religion is the correct one.. That was lucky!

Nobody rejects that culture influences beliefs.

FWIW I was brought up by Catholic parents and went to Catholic school, including Sunday school...

I just find it hard to fathom that people grow up 'knowing' their God is the correct one. Surely a logical person must know that if they happened to be born in Israel, or Iraq or somewhere else they would more than likely 'know' THAT God was the right one!?

There is no luck involved for my beliefs. I look at cold hard facts. I look at the evidence presented and it's not even close.

What you are able to fathom and what others are able to fathom are probably very different things. Surely a logical person will recognize that probabilities of believing things are not the same as reasons for believing things, and that this whole probability argument is basically meaningless.

Of course not. If you were born in Iraq, your beliefs would clearly still be what they are on the basis of your experiences being born in a place other than Iraq. Your ideas about what "cold hard facts" are and what those "cold hard facts" actually encompassed is clearly independent of any cultural influences. You are a pillar of objectivity.

Conquering land, dividing it into lots, laying down laws of commerce and excessive behavior - seems like a government to me


I suppose Z equates to X

"Conquering land" is not part of the law prescribed in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. You seem to be conflating a whole bunch of stuff together.

That would mean that your argument boils down to something like "Existence is sufficient for existence." That is, the reason that the ancient Jews took on their particular governmental structure is because their particular governmental structure was a sufficient reason to have it.