EXPOSED: The "Divine Fallacy" is NOT Really Divine!

[Jollybear]

I suspect you already use my methods in some contexts.
Lack of evidence is why you reject Islam & Scientology.

Ill answer that in a few ways.

There is anecdotal evidence that people have spiritual experiences within every religion, including islam, and probably sciontology to, but im less aware of them. But, in anycase, there is anectdotal.

Now, that said, let me break down further. This dont mean i agree with everything in islam or sciontology. It dont mean i disagree with everything either. The way i look at all religion is each religion has pieces of the puzzle. Some things they got right, some things they got wrong.

A belief system or creeds, doctrines are not evidence, thats true. But, history gathering can be a form of evidence, archeology can be, and science can be and logic to some extent, and experience (anectodes) can be, by the experiencer that is.

 

[Jollybear]

Depending on what you call "the universe", I am fairly certain that there are more possibilities.

I define "universe" as in EVERYTHING that exists.

 

[LuisDantas]

I define "universe" as in EVERYTHING that exists.

By that token, we have no means to establish how many possibilities exist, let alone which they are.

Who knows what may or may not exist?

Why even assume that such a task is within human reach?

Ultimately, we just don't know, and in all likelihood never will.

 

[ChristineM]

Take your pick. If something comes from it, then we can conclude it is an unstable state.

Why?

 

[ChristineM]

How do they know its coming from nothing rather then something they dont understand?

Im sure it was.

Because

 

[Revoltingest]

Ill answer that in a few ways.

There is anecdotal evidence that people have spiritual experiences within every religion, including islam, and probably sciontology to, but im less aware of them. But, in anycase, there is anectdotal.

Now, that said, let me break down further. This dont mean i agree with everything in islam or sciontology. It dont mean i disagree with everything either. The way i look at all religion is each religion has pieces of the puzzle. Some things they got right, some things they got wrong.

A belief system or creeds, doctrines are not evidence, thats true. But, history gathering can be a form of evidence, archeology can be, and science can be and logic to some extent, and experience (anectodes) can be, by the experiencer that is.

My personal anecdotal evidence is having never experienced any connection with gods.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So, theres trust, distrust and undecided?

Yes.

This is the same as with gods. We can believe, disbelieve, and lack belief without taking a stand about whether gods exist or not. We can call this believe, believe not, and not believe.

Say what? I read that about 7 times, that twisted my brain to pieces trying to figure that out. Break that down more?

I don't think I can. Don't worry about it.

im wondering why the God view is equally problematic to you as the other ones?

My leading candidate hypothesis is the multiverse hypothesis, since it accounts for the fine tuning problem with the least complexity - an unconscious source for our universe generating untold numbers of universes of all possible types, some just right to support the naturalistic development of life and mind. No sentient, volitional god is needed.

 

[Jollybear]

By that token, we have no means to establish how many possibilities exist, let alone which they are.

Who knows what may or may not exist?

Why even assume that such a task is within human reach?

Ultimately, we just don't know, and in all likelihood never will.

I still think only 3 views exist. Theres variations within each one, but still, broadly, just 3.

Let me replace the word universe and all that exists, with matter/energy.

The 3 views are

1, energy/matter are eternal and take various forms by chance and time.

2, energy/matter came from nothing, took various forms by chance and time.

3, energy/matter are concious and intelligent and this created all the various forms.

Theres no concievable 4th.

Even if someone came along and said "ahuh! Look a 4th option!" It really would not be so, it would merely be a rehash of one of these 3 views.

 

[Jollybear]

Because

Lol, that was funny. I wasnt expecting that.

But, anyway, because why?

 

[Jollybear]

My personal anecdotal evidence is having never experienced any connection with gods.

Nooooo, ya dont say?

Well.....let me illustrate it like this.....have you ever experienced seeing me?

You havent. But, i exist. You see evidence of my existence via the words on the forum. But, you havent seen me, yet you believe i exist.

You may say that you know i exist, but wait, how do you know this is not some computer generated robotic intelligence that generates responses to dialogue?

Aaaaahhhh, seee that now?

 

[Jollybear]

Yes.

This is the same as with gods. We can believe, disbelieve, and lack belief without taking a stand about whether gods exist or not. We can call this believe, believe not, and not believe.



I don't think I can. Don't worry about it.



My leading candidate hypothesis is the multiverse hypothesis, since it accounts for the fine tuning problem with the least complexity - an unconscious source for our universe generating untold numbers of universes of all possible types, some just right to support the naturalistic development of life and mind. No sentient, volitional god is needed.

Ok....so....how did this unconcious multiverse generator come to be?

 

[Revoltingest]

.....have you ever experienced seeing me?

No.

You havent. But, i exist. You see evidence of my existence via the words on the forum. But, you havent seen me, yet you believe i exist.

You could be a bot or sock puppet or a human.

You may say that you know i exist, but wait, how do you know this is not some computer generated robotic intelligence that generates responses to dialogue?

Aaaaahhhh, seee that now?

I see no connection with gods, monolog, dialog, or otherwise.

 

[Jollybear]

No.

You could be a bot or sock puppet or a human.

Yes, i could be either 3 of those options, but, what option is the most likely?

I see no connection with gods, monolog, dialog, or otherwise.

True, it isnt God, but it was an illustration.

However, let me approuch it differently.

What about the millions combined who have claimed to experience God, ghosts, ESP and a spirit realm and NDEs?

I know you said you have not experienced any of this, but, whats your view of those who have?

1, liers
2, halucinations
3, coincidences (in the case of ESP)
4, its real
5, undecided
?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, i could be either 3 of those options, but, what option is the most likely?

Human seems most likely.

True, it isnt God, but it was an illustration.

However, let me approuch it differently.

What about the millions combined who have claimed to experience God, ghosts, ESP and a spirit realm and NDEs?

There are also millions who don't have those experiences.
So either....
- One or the other endures a false illusion, or
- The gods choose some to speak to, but not others.

To vote upon reality is meaningless, & naught but a false comfort for the majority.

Let's also note that believers cannot agree upon.....
- The number of gods
- The gender of gods
- The nature of gods
- What the gods expect or demand of us
- The afterlife
- History
Even the largest group who would agree on all those things
would be a small fraction of the whole, & therefore out-voted.

I know you said you have not experienced any of this, but, whats your view of those who have?

1, liers
2, halucinations
3, coincidences (in the case of ESP)
4, its real
5, undecided
?

Some likely possibilities....
Hallucinations
Brainwashing
The desire to believe overwhelms reason

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

have you ever experienced seeing me? You haven't. But, i exist. You see evidence of my existence via the words on the forum. But, you haven't seen me, yet you believe i exist. You may say that you know i exist, but wait, how do you know this is not some computer generated robotic intelligence that generates responses to dialogue? Aaaaahhhh, see that now?

Yes, I see that, but what do you think is being seen? You're arguing that words we might attribute to a specific agent might originate elsewhere, and therefore to not assume that one knows the source if it is unseen. If we apply that to scripture, we should question any claim that it came from an unseen divine source.

how did this unconcious multiverse generator come to be?

My candidate list includes that this unconscious source of our reality either always existed infinitely far back in time, or that it came into being from nothing - two options which I explained seemed equally counterintuitive. No more can be said at this time.

Note that if we posit that the multiverse was created by a god, then the multiverse is not the source of our reality, and we are invoking a god hypothesis instead, reducing the multiverse to an intermediate role.

 

[ChristineM]

Lol, that was funny. I wasnt expecting that.

But, anyway, because why?

In a vacuum bubble there is nothing for it to come from

 

[Revoltingest]

In a vacuum bubble there is nothing for it to come from

It doesn't appear that a vacuum is devoid of "stuff".
Ref...
Vacuum - Wikipedia
Empty space is a busy place.

 

[ChristineM]

It doesn't appear that a vacuum is devoid of "stuff".
Ref...
Vacuum - Wikipedia
Empty space is a busy place.

I said vacuum bubble. In the case of quantum physics it is bubble of vacuum can form with a false vacuum.

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

 

[Revoltingest]

I said vacuum bubble. In the case of quantum physics it is bubble of vacuum can form with a false vacuum.

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

Now you're even farther above my pay grade.
I'm leaving!

 

[ChristineM]

Now you're even farther above my pay grade.
I'm leaving!

Don't leave on my account.