Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[mikkel_the_dane]

The strongest argument for God is a supertautology laid out by Christopher Langan and I back in 2018: Reality contains all and only that which exists.

This supertautology proves that materialism is ultimately false. Owing to the fact that a necessary definition of a simulation is that it has boundaries separating it from an external reality, in this case ultimate reality.

Yeah, he thinks reality in to being because he is greater that even God and reality. That is how powerful his brains.

 

[John D. Brey]

I never believed in any gods.
(The idea seems a silly delusion.)
I've no worries about bonfires, Heaven, or Hell.
I enjoy the existential pleasures of material existence.
I take measures to postpone death, but I don't fear or worry about it.

You're not likely to have taken any measures to prepare for your current life before you were conceived and then born. And yet when you found yourself here you no doubt adjusted to the situation. Passing through the hymen of the morgue will be like that. Except that some of us are taking the opportunity, this time around, to prepare for our rebirth by being born-again prior to it.



John

 

[Revoltingest]

You're not likely to have taken any measures to prepare for your current life before you were conceived and then born.

Spluh.

And yet when you found yourself here you no doubt adjusted to the situation. Passing through the hymen of the morgue will be like that. Except that some of us are taking the opportunity, this time around, to prepare for our rebirth by being born-again prior to it.

I don't believe in that stuff.

 

[John D. Brey]

Ok, so how does this non-corporeal entity you believe is the self perceive/experience pain.
You claim it is not possible for the brain to experience pain but then how is it possible for this non-corporeal self to have the physical experience of pain?

Noam Chomsky is so smart people often miss the meaning of his statements. In relation to your question (in a slightly different context) Chomsky claimed that there are things we know of, and he mentioned human grammar (his specialty) that are clearly and undeniably irreducibly complex. You have to have a particular complexity in place for human grammar to function, and yet you can't get to that complexity without it already functioning. When asked how he, an agnostic, could accept something like irreducible complexity (which speaks of magic, or seems theological, and is used by theological types to prove the existence of an invisible Creator) he gave the perfect answer. He said that unless his interlocutor thought he himself (Chomsky) were God, he sees no reason why he should have an answer to questions that don't have a non-magical, non-theological, solution? Human grammar is irreducibly complex and Chomsky doesn't have to know why since he's just a complex arrangement of non-divine, accidental, living cells.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Spluh.

I don't believe in that stuff.

You might not have believed in this stuff before it stuffed itself before your lying eyes?

God is like that. He's all around every one of us. His existence is more real than our own. Completely obvious. And yet we don't believe in the stuff that allows us not to believe in it if that's our inclination.

It is therefore plain, that nothing can be more evident to any one that is capable of the least reflexion, than the existence of God, or a spirit who is intimately present to our minds, producing in them all that variety or ideas or sensations, which continually affect us, on whom we have an absolute and entire dependence, in short, `in whom we live, and move, and have our being’ [Acts 17:28]. That the discovery of this great truth which lies so near and obvious to the mind, should be attained to by the reason of so very few, is a sad instance of the stupidity and inattention of men who, though they are surrounded with such clear manifestations of the Deity, are yet so little affected by them, that they seem as it were blinded with excess of light.

Bishop Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Principle # 149.​

John

 

[Mock Turtle]

Noam Chomsky is so smart people often miss the meaning of his statements. In relation to your question (in a slightly different context) Chomsky claimed that there are things we know of, and he mentioned human grammar (his specialty) that are clearly and undeniably irreducibly complex. You have to have a particular complexity in place for human grammar to function, and yet you can't get to that complexity without it already functioning. When asked how he, an agnostic, could accept something like irreducible complexity (which speaks of magic, or seems theological, and is used by theological types to prove the existence of an invisible Creator) he gave the perfect answer. He said that unless his interlocutor thought he himself (Chomsky) were God, he sees no reason why he should have an answer to questions that don't have a non-magical, non-theological, solution? Human grammar is irreducibly complex and Chomsky doesn't have to know why since he's just a complex arrangement of non-divine, accidental, living cells.



John

Do you not think that LLMs in AI might be challenging this somewhat - given the progress these have made?

 

[Nakosis]

Noam Chomsky is so smart people often miss the meaning of his statements. In relation to your question (in a slightly different context) Chomsky claimed that there are things we know of, and he mentioned human grammar (his specialty) that are clearly and undeniably irreducibly complex. You have to have a particular complexity in place for human grammar to function, and yet you can't get to that complexity without it already functioning. When asked how he, an agnostic, could accept something like irreducible complexity (which speaks of magic, or seems theological, and is used by theological types to prove the existence of an invisible Creator) he gave the perfect answer. He said that unless his interlocutor thought he himself (Chomsky) were God, he sees no reason why he should have an answer to questions that don't have a non-magical, non-theological, solution? Human grammar is irreducibly complex and Chomsky doesn't have to know why since he's just a complex arrangement of non-divine, accidental, living cells.



John

Human language is a product of the human mind, physical reality is not.
The ability of man's ability seems to grow exponentially. So I wouldn't bet on the lack of understanding from prior eras to support a continued belief in the supernatural.

 

[Heyo]

Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

That is wisdom.

 

[Revoltingest]

You might not have believed in this stuff before it stuffed itself before your lying eyes?

How do you know it's not your eyes lying to you, eh.

God is like that. He's all around every one of us. His existence is more real than our own. Completely obvious. And yet we don't believe in the stuff that allows us not to believe in it if that's our inclination.

It is therefore plain, that nothing can be more evident to any one that is capable of the least reflexion, than the existence of God, or a spirit who is intimately present to our minds, producing in them all that variety or ideas or sensations, which continually affect us, on whom we have an absolute and entire dependence, in short, `in whom we live, and move, and have our being’ [Acts 17:28]. That the discovery of this great truth which lies so near and obvious to the mind, should be attained to by the reason of so very few, is a sad instance of the stupidity and inattention of men who, though they are surrounded with such clear manifestations of the Deity, are yet so little affected by them, that they seem as it were blinded with excess of light.​

​

Bishop Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Principle # 149.​

What's obvious to us varies with the individual.
To me religion is an illusion.
It's irrational...& not in a good way.

 

[Copernicus]

Noam Chomsky is so smart people often miss the meaning of his statements. In relation to your question (in a slightly different context) Chomsky claimed that there are things we know of, and he mentioned human grammar (his specialty) that are clearly and undeniably irreducibly complex. You have to have a particular complexity in place for human grammar to function, and yet you can't get to that complexity without it already functioning. When asked how he, an agnostic, could accept something like irreducible complexity (which speaks of magic, or seems theological, and is used by theological types to prove the existence of an invisible Creator) he gave the perfect answer. He said that unless his interlocutor thought he himself (Chomsky) were God, he sees no reason why he should have an answer to questions that don't have a non-magical, non-theological, solution? Human grammar is irreducibly complex and Chomsky doesn't have to know why since he's just a complex arrangement of non-divine, accidental, living cells.

John

Noam Chomsky has explicitly rejected the theory of intelligent design, and I doubt that he has ever endorsed the idea that grammars are irreducibly complex. Indeed, his grammatical theories are devoted to reducing the perceived complexity of syntactic systems to the simpler components that interact to give rise to grammatical complexity. However, if you truly believe that he meant to endorse irreducible complexity, can you supply a reference to substantiate the claim?

 

[Copernicus]

My favorite argument in favor of rejecting belief in God (and gods) runs informally as follows:

1. Human beings are evolved from other animals with brains and peripheral nervous systems.
2. Brain activity causes all mental activity in humans and other animals.
3. When brain activity ceases, all mental function disappears (i.e. memories, sensations, volition, emotions, thoughts).
4. Therefore, disembodied spirits (entities with mental functions) without physical bodies are implausible, especially human spirits.
5. Avoidance of death is a prime directive for all living organisms, and that gives rise to fear of death in humans.
6. There is reason to believe humans invented gods to help assuage the fear of death with the idea that disembodied souls can be immortal.
7. Therefore, belief in the existence of God (and gods) is unjustified and implausible.

Basically, the argument rests on the belief that mental activity is physical activity--something that can be scientifically supported. In fact, human beings have always known this, because they have observed the effects of brain injuries on thought processes throughout recorded history. The essential connection between brains and minds is incontrovertible. Yet brainless Gods always have mental functions that mirror the kinds of evolved mental functions that humans have--emotions, sensations, memories, volition. These are properties that animal bodies need in order to survive, but God doesn't appear to have a body or exist in an evolutionary environment that would require him/her/it to come to have such properties. So, there is a very good reason to believe that belief in God is implausible. It should be rejected in the absence of evidence that disembodied spirits do exist.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You're not likely to have taken any measures to prepare for your current life before you were conceived and then born. And yet when you found yourself here you no doubt adjusted to the situation. Passing through the hymen of the morgue will be like that. Except that some of us are taking the opportunity, this time around, to prepare for our rebirth by being born-again prior to it.

John

You stand at the door of death
With no preparations for the journey.
Make an island for yourself.
Be quick in making effort. Be wise
Unblemished, and with corruption removed
You’ll enter the divine realms of the noble ones.

- The Dhammapada

 

[Nakosis]

You're not likely to have taken any measures to prepare for your current life before you were conceived and then born. And yet when you found yourself here you no doubt adjusted to the situation. Passing through the hymen of the morgue will be like that. Except that some of us are taking the opportunity, this time around, to prepare for our rebirth by being born-again prior to it.



John

Based on what you believe is true which could well be wrong. Then you be in the same situation as the rest, having to adjust to the "current" situation if even one exists. I on the other hand, have prepared by becoming the king of coping. Not preparing for a specific situation but preparing for any situation. Whatever comes, to be ready for.
I won't be wrong because I never claimed what is to come.

 

[dybmh]

That is wisdom.

Fear doesn't lead to anger.

Anger comes from a lack of power combined with a desire to assert power usually rapidly. It's hubris.

Besides, fear is very closely related to excitement. People love scary movies, and haunted houses, and roller coasters. It's all the same basic emotion.

So fear of God, is also, kinda fun.

 

[Heyo]

Fear doesn't lead to anger.

Anger comes from a lack of power combined with a desire to assert power usually rapidly. It's hubris.

Besides, fear is very closely related to excitement. People love scary movies, and haunted houses, and roller coasters. It's all the same basic emotion.

So fear of God, is also, kinda fun.

"Scary" movies are boring, haunted houses are bull**** and the thrill in roller coasters is the acceleration. Besides that, fear, real fear, is anything but desirable. Do you want to live in a society where you can be arrested without a warrant or a proper cause? Where you could be gunned down any moment? A system with a government that doesn't care about its people? Like North Korea or the USA?
That is the kind of crippling fear that fire&brimstone Christians try to induce in their children. Fear that keeps psychologists well employed. Fear of an overwhelmingly powerful entity that doesn't need a reason to torture you, that is immune to any reason.
Fear like that leads to psychological problems and it leads to irrational coping mechanisms. E.g. the fantasy that you can and must protect yourself by buying a gun. A fear and "solution" that seems pretty unique to the most fearful nation, the US.

 

[dybmh]

"Scary" movies are boring, haunted houses are bull**** and the thrill in roller coasters is the acceleration. Besides that, fear, real fear, is anything but desirable. Do you want to live in a society where you can be arrested without a warrant or a proper cause? Where you could be gunned down any moment? A system with a government that doesn't care about its people? Like North Korea or the USA?
That is the kind of crippling fear that fire&brimstone Christians try to induce in their children.

no, that would complete injustice and corruption. that's not fear of God. I highly doubt any Christian would teach that.

Fear that keeps psychologists well employed. Fear of an overwhelmingly powerful entity that doesn't need a reason to torture you, that is immune to any reason.

wrong god, heyo.

Fear like that leads to psychological problems and it leads to irrational coping mechanisms. E.g. the fantasy that you can and must protect yourself by buying a gun. A fear and "solution" that seems pretty unique to the most fearful nation, the US.

It sounds like something an anti-theist tells their children, to be honest, to scare them away from theists. "Those people worship a god who that will torture for no reason, gun you down at any moment, will arrest you when you've done nothing wrong."

 

[Heyo]

no, that would complete injustice and corruption. that's not fear of God. I highly doubt any Christian would teach that.



wrong god, heyo.



It sounds like something an anti-theist tells their children, to be honest, to scare them away from theists. "Those people worship a god who that will torture for no reason, gun you down at any moment, will arrest you when you've done nothing wrong."

So, why do you fear your god and why do you think other people should live in fear of it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My favorite argument in favor of rejecting belief in God (and gods) runs informally as follows:

1. Human beings are evolved from other animals with brains and peripheral nervous systems.
2. Brain activity causes all mental activity in humans and other animals.
3. When brain activity ceases, all mental function disappears (i.e. memories, sensations, volition, emotions, thoughts).
4. Therefore, disembodied spirits (entities with mental functions) without physical bodies are implausible, especially human spirits.
5. Avoidance of death is a prime directive for all living organisms, and that gives rise to fear of death in humans.
6. There is reason to believe humans invented gods to help assuage the fear of death with the idea that disembodied souls can be immortal.
7. Therefore, belief in the existence of God (and gods) is unjustified and implausible.

Basically, the argument rests on the belief that mental activity is physical activity--something that can be scientifically supported. In fact, human beings have always known this, because they have observed the effects of brain injuries on thought processes throughout recorded history. The essential connection between brains and minds is incontrovertible. Yet brainless Gods always have mental functions that mirror the kinds of evolved mental functions that humans have--emotions, sensations, memories, volition. These are properties that animal bodies need in order to survive, but God doesn't appear to have a body or exist in an evolutionary environment that would require him/her/it to come to have such properties. So, there is a very good reason to believe that belief in God is implausible. It should be rejected in the absence of evidence that disembodied spirits do exist.

That is philosophy and has the following hidden assumptions.
The universe is natural/physical, real, orderly and knowable. None of these are with evidence, but are the basis for evidence. And have never been proven as true and hence are termed methodological naturalism in that the method to to use those assumptions.

The fear of dying is sometimes the same intensity for the fear of not being rational and in contact with reality as varied among individuals.
Further for rational and reality is sometimes also connected with the belief in effect as to some variance for objective reason, logic and evidence/truth as the only method to claim something real.
In effect the belief set is sometimes no different than objective moral authority in religion and is for psychology/sociology in effect no different in that it is an internalized cultural worldview that is not doubted and made subject to critical thinking and skepticism.
It is in general sense a variant of skeptic, where it is assumed that all claims are to be doubted for their evidence, but the basis for evidence is not doubted.

In effect it rest on a set of cognitive abstract concepts with no objective referents, but they are treated as concrete concepts as linked to the assumed external sensory experiences and treated as real. But real itself is one of those words, which has no objective referent.

Note. I am myself assuming that the universe is real, orderly and knowable, but I don't treat it as neither natural nor supernatural.

 

[John D. Brey]

That is wisdom.

You quote the great Yoda saying, "Fear is the path to the dark side." And it almost sounds as if Yoda fears the dark side? If so, he's on the path there (since that's where fear leads). If not (if he doesn't fear the dark side) then perhaps he's already there (and has learned there's nothing there to fear)?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Based on what you believe is true which could well be wrong. Then you be in the same situation as the rest, having to adjust to the "current" situation if even one exists. I on the other hand, have prepared by becoming the king of coping. Not preparing for a specific situation but preparing for any situation. Whatever comes, to be ready for.
I won't be wrong because I never claimed what is to come.

. . . How have you prepared for the possibility that John 3:36 is the gospel truth?



John