The gods concept and false arguments against it

N

Norsefire

Salam Shalom Salom
Registered Senior Member
Often I see the argument, " We don't know if there is a god, sure, but we also don't know if santa clause exists." Or perhaps, "and we also don't know if a giant celestial teapot exists"

Yes, that's very true. However, that is such a weak and face-value view of things.

The main difference between, say, Santa Clause and the concept of gods is this:

"What leads you to that conclusion?"

This is what separates the concepts; sure, they both have no real evidence. However, one has logical basis, whereas the other has none whatsoever (santa)

If I were to ask you about what led you to the conclusion of Santa, you could not give me any observation to support your conclusion. There is nothing we can observe that leads us to the conclusion of santa, or a giant celestial teapot.

What leads you to the conclusion of a giant celestial teapot?

As for gods, I've already explained the intelligence-complexity conclusion, and therefore they have a basis. Of course, only the actual gods concept, not any specification or detail of it (because THAT does not have a basis)

They aren't comparable.
 
So what you are saying is that santa or the great teapot are not logical conclusions based on general observations of the universe, but that a creator-god is. Right? And what personal bias leads you to this? I myself see no more logic (less, in fact) in a creator-god than I do in santa claus.

You are presupposing your own biased conclusion.
 
superluminal said:
So what you are saying is that santa or the great teapot are not logical conclusions based on general observations of the universe, but that a creator-god is. Right? And what personal bias leads you to this? I myself see no more logic (less, in fact) in a creator-god than I do in santa claus.
Click to expand...

Santa and the giant teapot are possible, sure, but so are alot of things, and what we know of the universe has to be what we can actually observe with our senses.

That's for what we can know

As for suppositions, they require logical grounds. I do think the concept of gods has a logical grounds as to the conclusion; after all, think about it, many civilizations around the world came up with the gods concept, those that did not speak to each other even. Certainly they had their own variation, but for the most part, it was the same concept. Why?

It's quite simple to understand. Human beings, being intelligent, realized that intelligence can create complexity and influence their surroundings. Because the Earth is quite complex and there are forces of influence, we might attribute this to a higher intelligence. And higher intelligence is not an illogical concept.

Besides, if we can make any conclusion about the origins of our universe, it seemingly HAD to have either been created or originated without being created. What else is there? And neither of this suppositions are illogical, after all we Human beings create alot of things.
 
Norsefire said:
Santa and the giant teapot are possible, sure, but so are alot of things, and what we know of the universe has to be what we can actually observe with our senses.

That's for what we can know

As for suppositions, they require logical grounds. I do think the concept of gods has a logical grounds as to the conclusion; after all, think about it, many civilizations around the world came up with the gods concept, those that did not speak to each other even. Certainly they had their own variation, but for the most part, it was the same concept. Why?

It's quite simple to understand. Human beings, being intelligent, realized that intelligence can create complexity and influence their surroundings. Because the Earth is quite complex and there are forces of influence, we might attribute this to a higher intelligence. And higher intelligence is not an illogical concept.

Besides, if we can make any conclusion about the origins of our universe, it seemingly HAD to have either been created or originated without being created. What else is there? And neither of this suppositions are illogical, after all we Human beings create alot of things.
Click to expand...

Giant celestial teapots that created all that we know, mind you.
 
OK. You've explained (fairly reasonably) why humans may have "invented" the god idea. And the reasoning behind it seems logical. But that is different from claiming that the idea is a logical conclusion. It may have been at one time. And for children, santa is a logical conclusion based on observations and the testimony of those in authority. But they grow up and most (not all) of them realise the actual situation.

This is exactly the situation that many pre-modern adults found themselves in. Based on the testimony of those in authority, and observations of the universe, it seemed like the only real possibility. But as societies matured and a better (more adult) way of looking at the universe was developed, we "grew up" (not all of us) and realized the actual situation.

You see? The santa analogy/argument is probably one of the simplest and most direct demonstrations of the nature of religion. Your statements seem to be a biased (subconsciously?) attempt to give respectability and weight to what is really no more compelling than a childs story.
 
superluminal said:
OK. You've explained (fairly reasonably) why humans may have "invented" the god idea. And the reasoning behind it seems logical. But that is different from claiming that the idea is a logical conclusion. It may have been at one time. And for children, santa is a logical conclusion based on observations and the testimony of those in authority. But they grow up and most (not all) of them realise the actual situation.
Click to expand...
It is a logical supposition, and remains very much on the table as one of the explanations of the origins of our universe

And santa has no observational basis, and therefore isn't the same as the god idea. It's purely faith based, but the idea never originated by observation, as the idea of god likely did.

This is exactly the situation that many pre-modern adults found themselves in. Based on the testimony of those in authority, and observations of the universe, it seemed like the only real possibility.
Click to expand...
The testimony of those in authority is hardly any reason to have a belief in gods. However, there is more than testimony, as I've explained: there is observation. And that is why it remains a viable and very real possibility.

But as societies matured and a better (more adult) way of looking at the universe was developed, we "grew up" (not all of us) and realized the actual situation.
Click to expand...
What is the "actual situation"?

The actual situation is that we have no clue. However, we do know that things are either caused intentionally, as by intelligent forces, or happen without intelligent intervention, and therefore we can conclude that our universe was either created or was not created. That's the actual situation.

You see? The santa analogy/argument is probably one of the simplest and most direct demonstrations of the nature of religion.
Click to expand...

Ah, you're right, but you said the nature of religion. I am not speaking of blind faith religion, nor of worship, nor of anything of the sort. I'm merely speaking of the core concept of intelligence, which isn't comparable to a child's story.
 
Norsefire said:
What leads you to the conclusion of a giant celestial teapot?

As for gods, I've already explained the intelligence-complexity conclusion,
Click to expand...

For the sake of context, perhaps you'd care to list the syllogism of premises that lead to your conclusion for gods.
 
Well norse, as far as the idea that the universe had or did not have an intelligence behind it's origin (if it even had an origin), that is pure metaphysics in my book and remains a cocktail party chit-chat topic. My santa argument applies to conventional religions. Sorry I wen't down that path again.
 
SkinWalker said:
For the sake of context, perhaps you'd care to list the syllogism of premises that lead to your conclusion for gods.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should be more precise: it leads to the conclusion of the possibility of gods. And not just a "it's possible" as with the celestial teapot, but rather actually a very real possible explanation.


The premise is quite simple: intelligence can create complexity and is influential; our world is complex and there are forces of influence. There is either intelligence or nature, thus the only possiblities are intelligence or nature behind it.
 
superluminal said:
Well norse, as far as the idea that the universe had or did not have an intelligence behind it's origin (if it even had an origin), that is pure metaphysics in my book and remains a cocktail party chit-chat topic. My santa argument applies to conventional religions. Sorry I wen't down that path again.
Click to expand...

Of course, I agree that religions generally have no basis beyond their actual core concept of intelligence. There is no basis for knowing what these gods look like, how they think, what they want, etc, but there is basis enough to suggest the possibility of their existence, I think, as being a viable explanation. By gods, remember I mean influential intelligent entities.

You should check out my other thread titled, "What is a god?" in this same subforum :)

However, the point is, our universe, if it had a beginning, either had to have been created (as by an intelligence) or was not created (was not intentionally caused to be); as of now, they both remain viable possibilities but we really shouldn't lean either way.
 
superluminal said:
Isn't this axiomatic though? Is this really a significant conclusion? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Of course it is significant, at least enough to give credit to the idea of gods, because we know that the forces of influence are intelligence or "nature"
 
Norsefire said:
...as of now, they both remain viable possibilities but we really shouldn't lean either way.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with that. I would say that all indications so far are that the universe just is. Leaning to the "natural" process model is a quite rewarding approach, as it leads to some pretty amazing insights. Leaning the other way would leave you... where?
 
Norsefire said:
Of course it is significant, at least enough to give credit to the idea of gods, because we know that the forces of influence are intelligence or "nature"
Click to expand...

All I meant was that given a binary choice, concluding that one of them must be true, is axiomatic and not significant in a technical sense. As in "The solution to this differential equation is trivial" or not.
 
Norsefire said:
The premise is quite simple: intelligence can create complexity and is influential; our world is complex and there are forces of influence. There is either intelligence or nature, thus the only possiblities are intelligence or nature behind it.
Click to expand...

What is your definition of complexity?
 
superluminal said:
Not sure I agree with that. I would say that all indications so far are that the universe just is. Leaning to the "natural" process model is a quite rewarding approach, as it leads to some pretty amazing insights. Leaning the other way would leave you... where?
Click to expand...
"Just is" makes no sense; it's impossible.

Leaning to the "natural" process model would give nothing more than the other way; besides, do we find answers for what they are or for what we want them to be?

superluminal said:
All I meant was that given a binary choice, concluding that one of them must be true, is axiomatic and not significant in a technical sense. As in "The solution to this differential equation is trivial" or not.
Click to expand...
We can narrow it down at least; the point is simple: the gods concept is valid, and shouldn't be dismissed.

SkinWalker said:
What is your definition of complexity?
Click to expand...
An interesting question.
 
Norsefire said:
"Just is" makes no sense; it's impossible.
Click to expand...
Really? I find it makes perfect sense and is the only rational conclusion mo matter the way you "lean" on the subject. If the universe was not created, then it just is. It has no point of origin. Temporally, it just is. It goes through states (hot/dense, cool/dilute).

If you posit an intelligence behind it - a god - you always beg the question of gods creation and usually arrive at the exact same point as stated above. Theists like to call it a "first cause" which is just another way of saying just is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top