Religious Belief is Human Nature?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

Oh brother. These studies are idiotic and this is me talking as an atheist.

First off, the assumption is the religion = superstitious hypocrisy. The studies – done by people who are not religious and I’m sure are treating it like some disease and thanklessly verifying their results.

The major question here is this: What do people do with fundamentally unanswerable questions? Such as why life exists in the universe or why do good people die young?

Very, very Important point: In the Sciences (and yes, I am a career Scientist who works full time as a researcher at a major US university), stating that something is random (“black-box”) is another way of stating that the workings of it are not understood or inessential to a problem. The assumption is that it will be investigated at some other point if needed. The important ramification here is saying that “all life is random” just black-boxes it. In a legitimate inquiry, that is a special assumption that fixes the limit of ignorance. Think about that.

So what do I see? Religions are essentially places to put unknowable things. Since there will always be unknowable things, some form of religious thinking will always exist. For instance, here on campus I have seen it repeatedly that nice, progressive, liberal types who consider themselves far too advanced to ever succumb to religion – again which they hold in contempt – one day encounter some great life trauma, be it the death of a spouse or a serious, life altering ailment. Then what do they do? They get flaky “spiritual” which most often means they go window shopping for random bits of philosophy (Buddhist and Hindu are big draws) which they promulgate into their own contrived religion, most often larded with rather goofy superstitions (like putting out Tibetian Prayer Wheels).

Also, since, as I have stated repeatedly on the fori and must do so again, equality, justice and freedom are human concepts for regulating human behavior. They have no analog in Nature, where aggression is rewarded instead. A much better way to do such a study would be to assume that people gravitate towards organized religion partly because there are unanswerable questions, about how say justice fits into the universe. Admit that religions have undergone sufficient evolution of their ideas that they have the ring of truth to many people, rather than some cockeyed biological determinism that smacks of how gosh darn clever the researchers are.

Final bit of my rant: Any research of theory that posits that the speaker is a special case is not a theory, it is bragging. That these sorts of elitist ramblings get passed off as enlightenment is astonishing. Americans are greedy? Like you (if you are one)? If you and all your friends are happy exceptions then your theory is bunk and should be disposed of posthaste.

– jj[/quote]

Good post. I mostly agree, with the caveat that equality, justice, and freedom could well be the product of biological or memetic evolution, if in fact behaving by such standards contributes to the survivability of the species (and I think a case can be made that it does).

242
243

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]

Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]

No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.

As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]

Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.

You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.

It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned. [/quote]

You said everybody has a position, but infants do not so this statement is wrong. Once an infant is raised it’s not an infant anymore so your next point is a non-sequitur but it is also wrong because if the question is never raised they will still be neutral anyway. Saying that they will (eventually) pick up a position from there parents is irrelevant; it’s essentially the same as saying “once this person stops being neutral, he will no longer be neutral” - well obviously, but before they are non-neutral they are neutral and since they are in fact people it is incorrect to say that nobody is neutral.

Your bible contains things that are physically, historically and logically impossible. Most of these things can be debunked with a basic understanding of history, biology or logic (other than the circular kind of course). I meant something more along the lines of a highschool diploma, but for what it’s worth I do think most of what one learns in highschool could be learnt by about grade six if taught ably, but that’s neither here nor there.

You’re straw-manning me. I never said anything about nothing creating something and in fact quantum mechanics points to no such conclusion. Rather, it is believed that there are dimensions (like spatial dimensions) greater than 4 (Length, width, depth, tetraspace/time) that go up to around 11 (some say 26, but whatever). These greater dimensions would (as the word “greater” suggests) be above time and not ruled by it. Therefore you can have the “stuff” necessary to create an infinite amount of universes without requiring a time ruled cause-and-effect chain of events (as we understand causality to be, that is).

If you want to argue that there is some “super-consciousness” that exists somewhere in these greater dimensions (or IS these greater dimensions) that created our universe, then great, but the “God” as defined in your bible is definitely not this being.

244

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[/quote]

Honest agnosticism ain’t easy, but someone’s gotta do it.

245

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]

Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]

No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.

As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]

Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.

You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.

It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned. [/quote]

You said everybody has a position, but infants do not so this statement is wrong. Once an infant is raised it’s not an infant anymore so your next point is a non-sequitur but it is also wrong because if the question is never raised they will still be neutral anyway. Saying that they will (eventually) pick up a position from there parents is irrelevant; it’s essentially the same as saying “once this person stops being neutral, he will no longer be neutral” - well obviously, but before they are non-neutral they are neutral and since they are in fact people it is incorrect to say that nobody is neutral.

Your bible contains things that are physically, historically and logically impossible. Most of these things can be debunked with a basic understanding of history, biology or logic (other than the circular kind of course). I meant something more along the lines of a highschool diploma, but for what it’s worth I do think most of what one learns in highschool could be learnt by about grade six if taught ably, but that’s neither here nor there.

You’re straw-manning me. I never said anything about nothing creating something and in fact quantum mechanics points to no such conclusion. Rather, it is believed that there are dimensions (like spatial dimensions) greater than 4 (Length, width, depth, tetraspace/time) that go up to around 11 (some say 26, but whatever). These greater dimensions would (as the word “greater” suggests) be above time and not ruled by it. Therefore you can have the “stuff” necessary to create an infinite amount of universes without requiring a time ruled cause-and-effect chain of events (as we understand causality to be, that is).

If you want to argue that there is some “super-consciousness” that exists somewhere in these greater dimensions (or IS these greater dimensions) that created our universe, then great, but the “God” as defined in your bible is definitely not this being.[/quote]

The mere possibility of more than 4 dimensions debunks the cosmological argument, since one of its fundamental assumptions is that there must have been a “first cause”. Just another example of why absolute certainty is impossible, based on what we currently know.

246

I’ve had friends, former Catholics turned agnostics just like myself, who have had lengthy conversations with priests. At the end, the priests told them that as long as they believed in “something,” that they were okay in terms of they still had a shot of getting into heaven.

For the Catholics: Is this accurate?

For Tirib and others who are more of the Evangelical bent: What’s wrong with this? I and others have repeatedly acknowledged of possibility of “something,” some supreme force or uncaused cause that set this little thing we call the universe in motion. What I reject, first and foremost, and I’m sure others will agree, is organized religion. It’s superstitious nonsense and probably the greatest scam ever created by humans - makes Bernie Madoff look like a small-time pickpocket. I also think it is highly, highly unlikely that this force in the universe is personal and loving, and had a son whom he sent to earth on a suicide mission supposedly for our benefit. Other than this, I feel I have lived and continue to live a good life, better than most so-called Christians. So why isn’t this enough? How is it that I’m trying to “hide from God” as you say when I explicitly acknowledge the possibility of some higher force, albeit not personal and loving? And if the main point of religion, perhaps THE main point, is to impose morality, then where have I gone wrong? I don’t murder, cheat, steal, or lie; I try and help others. Despite claims from many that a lack of religion will be replaced by narcissism, booze, drugs, and sex, I am not narcissistic, don’t drink to excess, never used drugs, and do not have sex outside of my marriage. Should I not be held up as an example of the right way to live instead of being criticized as someone who “hates” God and lives a meaningless life? What requirement of religion have I not fulfilled other than not believing the fairy tales? What am I missing?

247

I think Mike that, as long as you believe in ‘something’, you can be converted back into the flock.

When all beliefs have eroded you’ve become useless to institutionalised religion.

248

Commandment number 1. " I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt. You shall have no other gods before me". The idolatry of believing in “something” that is not the Gospel of the one true and living God is worse by far than believing nothing at all. If that were possible because God says in Romans 1 for the 100th time that there is no such thing as even one single human being ever born or who ever will be who does not know that He is there and that they are responsible to him.

That means elder Forlife, Ephrem, and Mike. For liberal Catholics like Pat, hell is only for those who put in a real championship effort at getting there. For groovy emergent protestants it’s the same thing. For serious believers in the scriptures its:
Romans 10:13-17

[quote]13-For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14-How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15-And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16-But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17-So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.[/quote]
Acts 4:11-12

John 14:6

Jesus to His disciples in Luke 10:

John 10:25-30

[quote]25-Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father?s name bear witness about me, 26-but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27-My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28-I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29-My Father, who has given them to me,a is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father?s hand. 30-I and the Father are one.”[/quote] Among MANY others. BTW, only He can tell somebody they are not His sheep. I cannot and would not ever dare be so blasphemously presumptuous.

249

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]

Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]

No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.

As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]

Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.

You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.

It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned. [/quote]

You said everybody has a position, but infants do not so this statement is wrong. Once an infant is raised it’s not an infant anymore so your next point is a non-sequitur but it is also wrong because if the question is never raised they will still be neutral anyway. Saying that they will (eventually) pick up a position from there parents is irrelevant; it’s essentially the same as saying “once this person stops being neutral, he will no longer be neutral” - well obviously, but before they are non-neutral they are neutral and since they are in fact people it is incorrect to say that nobody is neutral.

Your bible contains things that are physically, historically and logically impossible. Most of these things can be debunked with a basic understanding of history, biology or logic (other than the circular kind of course). I meant something more along the lines of a highschool diploma, but for what it’s worth I do think most of what one learns in highschool could be learnt by about grade six if taught ably, but that’s neither here nor there.

You’re straw-manning me. I never said anything about nothing creating something and in fact quantum mechanics points to no such conclusion. Rather, it is believed that there are dimensions (like spatial dimensions) greater than 4 (Length, width, depth, tetraspace/time) that go up to around 11 (some say 26, but whatever). These greater dimensions would (as the word “greater” suggests) be above time and not ruled by it. Therefore you can have the “stuff” necessary to create an infinite amount of universes without requiring a time ruled cause-and-effect chain of events (as we understand causality to be, that is).

If you want to argue that there is some “super-consciousness” that exists somewhere in these greater dimensions (or IS these greater dimensions) that created our universe, then great, but the “God” as defined in your bible is definitely not this being.[/quote]

The mere possibility of more than 4 dimensions debunks the cosmological argument, since one of its fundamental assumptions is that there must have been a “first cause”. Just another example of why absolute certainty is impossible, based on what we currently know.[/quote]
There is a grave misunderstanding here. Multiple dimensions does not do away with the causation principle, how do you think physicist inferred the existence of such dimensions if they were not causally connected to the ones we experience and do experiments on. Secondly the fact that physicist mathematically describe these extra dimensions in addition to the ones in our immediate experience shows that the physicist believe they can show the causal mechanism in which these extra dimensions interact with ours.

If these extra dimensions were not causally linked the physicist has no grounds on which to infer their existence.

250

Joab:

  1. Dimensions are, by definition, orthogonal to one another. How does moving along the X axis have any bearing whatsoever on the Y or Z axis?

  2. Causality is itself an assumption.

251

[quote]forlife wrote:
Joab:

  1. Dimensions are, by definition, orthogonal to one another. How does moving along the X axis have any bearing whatsoever on the Y or Z axis?

  2. Causality is itself an assumption.[/quote]
    Easily there are certain vector operations called cross products where movement along the x and y will produce a result orthogonal to both along the z axis.

The causal mechanism may be called into question but not the causal principle itself, otherwise you have no basis for science. We know there is a causal relationship of some kind when a moving charge is moving through a magnetic field, we believe the mechanism to be very well described in Maxwell’s equations.

252

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Joab:

  1. Dimensions are, by definition, orthogonal to one another. How does moving along the X axis have any bearing whatsoever on the Y or Z axis?

  2. Causality is itself an assumption.[/quote]
    Easily there are certain vector operations called cross products where movement along the x and y will produce a result orthogonal to both along the z axis.

The causal mechanism may be called into question but not the causal principle itself, otherwise you have no basis for science. We know there is a causal relationship of some kind when a moving charge is moving through a magnetic field, we believe the mechanism to be very well described in Maxwell’s equations.[/quote]

If X and Y define a plane, moving along that plane has no effect on planes in a third dimension.

If science makes unidimensional claims, it doesn’t generalize those claims to multiple dimensions. If science makes multidimensional claims, it acknowledges changes across multiple dimensions, rather than changes in one dimension that cause changes in other dimensions. If I move in a line, I affect one dimension. If I move diagonally, I affect two dimensions. If I move diagonally and vertically, I affect 3 dimensions. Moving in a line alone doesn’t affect the other 2 dimensions.

At least, that is my understanding.

Regardless, my main point was that causality is an assumption. It’s probably a properly basic assumption, but it is still an assumption. Claiming the cosmological argument MUST be true ignores this.

253

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Joab:

  1. Dimensions are, by definition, orthogonal to one another. How does moving along the X axis have any bearing whatsoever on the Y or Z axis?

  2. Causality is itself an assumption.[/quote]
    Easily there are certain vector operations called cross products where movement along the x and y will produce a result orthogonal to both along the z axis.

The causal mechanism may be called into question but not the causal principle itself, otherwise you have no basis for science. We know there is a causal relationship of some kind when a moving charge is moving through a magnetic field, we believe the mechanism to be very well described in Maxwell’s equations.[/quote]

If X and Y define a plane, moving along that plane has no effect on planes in a third dimension.

If science makes unidimensional claims, it doesn’t generalize those claims to multiple dimensions. If science makes multidimensional claims, it acknowledges changes across multiple dimensions, rather than changes in one dimension that cause changes in other dimensions. If I move in a line, I affect one dimension. If I move diagonally, I affect two dimensions. If I move diagonally and vertically, I affect 3 dimensions. Moving in a line alone doesn’t affect the other 2 dimensions.

At least, that is my understanding.

Regardless, my main point was that causality is an assumption. It’s probably a properly basic assumption, but it is still an assumption. Claiming the cosmological argument MUST be true ignores this.[/quote]
That is why I brought up the vector operation called cross products where the movement along a plane will result in a effect orthogonal to the plane, there are also things called curls and other things which are outside of my mathematical experience. Here is an interesting example of how people can infer extra dimensions. Lets say there are these people that perceive a 2-d existence plus time and they have developed mathematics and such where they know logically that triangles add up to 180 degrees given the premise of 2-d ness. When they draw giant triangles in their world they find out that they add up to more and less than 180 degrees, what have they found out about their world?

Yes I would say that causality is a properly basic belief upon which a large portion of human knowledge and all of scientific knowledge is founded on. Yes one can always avoid the conclusion of a deductive argument by rejecting one of the premises since the conclusion follows inescapably from the premises. Sure rejecting that premise isn’t equivalent to rejecting the premise that something exist rather than nothing at all, but would you find yourself, or anyone else rational in rejecting the causality premise?

254

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Joab:

  1. Dimensions are, by definition, orthogonal to one another. How does moving along the X axis have any bearing whatsoever on the Y or Z axis?

  2. Causality is itself an assumption.[/quote]
    Easily there are certain vector operations called cross products where movement along the x and y will produce a result orthogonal to both along the z axis.

The causal mechanism may be called into question but not the causal principle itself, otherwise you have no basis for science. We know there is a causal relationship of some kind when a moving charge is moving through a magnetic field, we believe the mechanism to be very well described in Maxwell’s equations.[/quote]

If X and Y define a plane, moving along that plane has no effect on planes in a third dimension.

If science makes unidimensional claims, it doesn’t generalize those claims to multiple dimensions. If science makes multidimensional claims, it acknowledges changes across multiple dimensions, rather than changes in one dimension that cause changes in other dimensions. If I move in a line, I affect one dimension. If I move diagonally, I affect two dimensions. If I move diagonally and vertically, I affect 3 dimensions. Moving in a line alone doesn’t affect the other 2 dimensions.

At least, that is my understanding.

Regardless, my main point was that causality is an assumption. It’s probably a properly basic assumption, but it is still an assumption. Claiming the cosmological argument MUST be true ignores this.[/quote]
That is why I brought up the vector operation called cross products where the movement along a plane will result in a effect orthogonal to the plane, there are also things called curls and other things which are outside of my mathematical experience. Here is an interesting example of how people can infer extra dimensions. Lets say there are these people that perceive a 2-d existence plus time and they have developed mathematics and such where they know logically that triangles add up to 180 degrees given the premise of 2-d ness. When they draw giant triangles in their world they find out that they add up to more and less than 180 degrees, what have they found out about their world?

Yes I would say that causality is a properly basic belief upon which a large portion of human knowledge and all of scientific knowledge is founded on. Yes one can always avoid the conclusion of a deductive argument by rejecting one of the premises since the conclusion follows inescapably from the premises. Sure rejecting that premise isn’t equivalent to rejecting the premise that something exist rather than nothing at all, but would you find yourself, or anyone else rational in rejecting the causality premise?[/quote]

Don’t cross products require a variable interaction though, whether directly or by virtue of a third variable? X and Y interact at one point, where the axes cross, so in that sense they’re not completely orthogonal. Parallel lines would be a better example.

I agree that properly basic assumptions allow more confidence than other assumptions. As I’ve said before, confidence is a continuum, rather than a black and white all or nothing product of logic, evidence, and the assumptions upon which they are based. Just because we can’t know everything doesn’t mean we can’t have justified higher levels of confidence for some ideas than for other ideas. I’m a lot more confident that the light will turn on when I flip the switch than I am that a supernatural being created the universe. Both are theoretically possible, but one has more reliable supporting evidence than the other.

255

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Joab:

  1. Dimensions are, by definition, orthogonal to one another. How does moving along the X axis have any bearing whatsoever on the Y or Z axis?

  2. Causality is itself an assumption.[/quote]
    Easily there are certain vector operations called cross products where movement along the x and y will produce a result orthogonal to both along the z axis.

The causal mechanism may be called into question but not the causal principle itself, otherwise you have no basis for science. We know there is a causal relationship of some kind when a moving charge is moving through a magnetic field, we believe the mechanism to be very well described in Maxwell’s equations.[/quote]

If X and Y define a plane, moving along that plane has no effect on planes in a third dimension.

If science makes unidimensional claims, it doesn’t generalize those claims to multiple dimensions. If science makes multidimensional claims, it acknowledges changes across multiple dimensions, rather than changes in one dimension that cause changes in other dimensions. If I move in a line, I affect one dimension. If I move diagonally, I affect two dimensions. If I move diagonally and vertically, I affect 3 dimensions. Moving in a line alone doesn’t affect the other 2 dimensions.

At least, that is my understanding.

Regardless, my main point was that causality is an assumption. It’s probably a properly basic assumption, but it is still an assumption. Claiming the cosmological argument MUST be true ignores this.[/quote]
That is why I brought up the vector operation called cross products where the movement along a plane will result in a effect orthogonal to the plane, there are also things called curls and other things which are outside of my mathematical experience. Here is an interesting example of how people can infer extra dimensions. Lets say there are these people that perceive a 2-d existence plus time and they have developed mathematics and such where they know logically that triangles add up to 180 degrees given the premise of 2-d ness. When they draw giant triangles in their world they find out that they add up to more and less than 180 degrees, what have they found out about their world?

Yes I would say that causality is a properly basic belief upon which a large portion of human knowledge and all of scientific knowledge is founded on. Yes one can always avoid the conclusion of a deductive argument by rejecting one of the premises since the conclusion follows inescapably from the premises. Sure rejecting that premise isn’t equivalent to rejecting the premise that something exist rather than nothing at all, but would you find yourself, or anyone else rational in rejecting the causality premise?[/quote]

Don’t cross products require a variable interaction though, whether directly or by virtue of a third variable? X and Y interact at one point, where the axes cross, so in that sense they’re not completely orthogonal. Parallel lines would be a better example.

I agree that properly basic assumptions allow more confidence than other assumptions. As I’ve said before, confidence is a continuum, rather than a black and white all or nothing product of logic, evidence, and the assumptions upon which they are based. Just because we can’t know everything doesn’t mean we can’t have justified higher levels of confidence for some ideas than for other ideas. I’m a lot more confident that the light will turn on when I flip the switch than I am that a supernatural being created the universe. Both are theoretically possible, but one has more reliable supporting evidence than the other.
[/quote]
At a certain point going back to ones epistemic foundations it has to be black and white just simply due to the law of non-contradiction and law of excluded middle. I have no idea where the thought of one believing in the non-contingent supreme being who sustains reality means that I don’t believe that things aren’t normative. On the contrary that’s what warrants my belief in flipping the light switch and if it doesn’t then there is a reason for it. One has beliefs prior to the light switch upon which the light switch is based.

Contrary to popular belief naturalism isn’t a neutral position to take nor does it give one warrant for trusting ones cognitive faculties just for the sheer fact that a domino can do nothing about the place it falls in(hopefully that was a good analogy, I have presented the argument three or four times in one of my threads in greater detail if you want me to link it).

If your serious about the one non-contingent supreme being is possible, Ill show you deductively why he actually is. If not then I will ask if you find causality more probable than not, then what happens to your prior critiques of the cosmological argument?

256

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Joab:

  1. Dimensions are, by definition, orthogonal to one another. How does moving along the X axis have any bearing whatsoever on the Y or Z axis?

  2. Causality is itself an assumption.[/quote]
    Easily there are certain vector operations called cross products where movement along the x and y will produce a result orthogonal to both along the z axis.

The causal mechanism may be called into question but not the causal principle itself, otherwise you have no basis for science. We know there is a causal relationship of some kind when a moving charge is moving through a magnetic field, we believe the mechanism to be very well described in Maxwell’s equations.[/quote]

If X and Y define a plane, moving along that plane has no effect on planes in a third dimension.

If science makes unidimensional claims, it doesn’t generalize those claims to multiple dimensions. If science makes multidimensional claims, it acknowledges changes across multiple dimensions, rather than changes in one dimension that cause changes in other dimensions. If I move in a line, I affect one dimension. If I move diagonally, I affect two dimensions. If I move diagonally and vertically, I affect 3 dimensions. Moving in a line alone doesn’t affect the other 2 dimensions.

At least, that is my understanding.

Regardless, my main point was that causality is an assumption. It’s probably a properly basic assumption, but it is still an assumption. Claiming the cosmological argument MUST be true ignores this.[/quote]
That is why I brought up the vector operation called cross products where the movement along a plane will result in a effect orthogonal to the plane, there are also things called curls and other things which are outside of my mathematical experience. Here is an interesting example of how people can infer extra dimensions. Lets say there are these people that perceive a 2-d existence plus time and they have developed mathematics and such where they know logically that triangles add up to 180 degrees given the premise of 2-d ness. When they draw giant triangles in their world they find out that they add up to more and less than 180 degrees, what have they found out about their world?

Yes I would say that causality is a properly basic belief upon which a large portion of human knowledge and all of scientific knowledge is founded on. Yes one can always avoid the conclusion of a deductive argument by rejecting one of the premises since the conclusion follows inescapably from the premises. Sure rejecting that premise isn’t equivalent to rejecting the premise that something exist rather than nothing at all, but would you find yourself, or anyone else rational in rejecting the causality premise?[/quote]

Don’t cross products require a variable interaction though, whether directly or by virtue of a third variable? X and Y interact at one point, where the axes cross, so in that sense they’re not completely orthogonal. Parallel lines would be a better example.

I agree that properly basic assumptions allow more confidence than other assumptions. As I’ve said before, confidence is a continuum, rather than a black and white all or nothing product of logic, evidence, and the assumptions upon which they are based. Just because we can’t know everything doesn’t mean we can’t have justified higher levels of confidence for some ideas than for other ideas. I’m a lot more confident that the light will turn on when I flip the switch than I am that a supernatural being created the universe. Both are theoretically possible, but one has more reliable supporting evidence than the other.
[/quote]
At a certain point going back to ones epistemic foundations it has to be black and white just simply due to the law of non-contradiction and law of excluded middle. I have no idea where the thought of one believing in the non-contingent supreme being who sustains reality means that I don’t believe that things aren’t normative. On the contrary that’s what warrants my belief in flipping the light switch and if it doesn’t then there is a reason for it. One has beliefs prior to the light switch upon which the light switch is based.

Contrary to popular belief naturalism isn’t a neutral position to take nor does it give one warrant for trusting ones cognitive faculties just for the sheer fact that a domino can do nothing about the place it falls in(hopefully that was a good analogy, I have presented the argument three or four times in one of my threads in greater detail if you want me to link it).

If your serious about the one non-contingent supreme being is possible, Ill show you deductively why he actually is. If not then I will ask if you find causality more probable than not, then what happens to your prior critiques of the cosmological argument?[/quote]

  1. We’re not debating whether reality itself is black and white (see #2 below), but whether our understanding of reality, and the associated confidence in the correctness of that understanding, must or indeed even can be black and white. If you’ve had a basic stats class, you understand that confidence is on a continuum, and perfect knowledge, free of underlying assumptions, is impossible. Most people intuitively understand this anyway; they have different levels of confidence in different ideas, based on the evidence supporting those ideas. Understanding and certitude are on a continuum; they are not black and white.

  2. The “laws” of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are themselves assumptions. Philosophers have, in fact, offered arguments against even these fundamental assumptions, and there is some scientific evidence supporting these arguments. So we don’t know with 100% certainty that reality itself is black and white.

  3. Pat and I have discussed the deductive logic of the cosmological argument at length. I have shown that there are equally logical alternate explanations (for example, that the fundamental units of matter and energy are creatively, not interactionally, noncontingent), and more importantly that deductive logic itself cannot provide 100% certainty of anything (see #2 above).

257

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Everybody leads an uncertain life. >>>[/quote]I don’t. [quote]pat wrote:You have to know everything to have certainty, >>>[/quote]BINGO!!! THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! YOU WIN!!! UTTER PROFUNDITY FROM PAT AND I AM DEAD SERIOUS!!! What you just said is THE key to epistemology. [quote]pat wrote:<<< I don’t know anybody else who fits that definition.[/quote] I do. His name “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”!!! Isaiah 9:6

I have HIS certainty because I HAVE HIM, by HIS merciful electing grace. All praise, glory and honor be to His holy name.
[/quote]

Sooooo, you know everything? Ok then test time!

What is the differentiating air born molecular difference between a decomposing body at room temperature at 1 week vs. 2?

258

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]

Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]

No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.

As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]

Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.

You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.

It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned. [/quote]

You said everybody has a position, but infants do not so this statement is wrong. Once an infant is raised it’s not an infant anymore so your next point is a non-sequitur but it is also wrong because if the question is never raised they will still be neutral anyway. Saying that they will (eventually) pick up a position from there parents is irrelevant; it’s essentially the same as saying “once this person stops being neutral, he will no longer be neutral” - well obviously, but before they are non-neutral they are neutral and since they are in fact people it is incorrect to say that nobody is neutral.

Your bible contains things that are physically, historically and logically impossible. Most of these things can be debunked with a basic understanding of history, biology or logic (other than the circular kind of course). I meant something more along the lines of a highschool diploma, but for what it’s worth I do think most of what one learns in highschool could be learnt by about grade six if taught ably, but that’s neither here nor there.

You’re straw-manning me. I never said anything about nothing creating something and in fact quantum mechanics points to no such conclusion. Rather, it is believed that there are dimensions (like spatial dimensions) greater than 4 (Length, width, depth, tetraspace/time) that go up to around 11 (some say 26, but whatever). These greater dimensions would (as the word “greater” suggests) be above time and not ruled by it. Therefore you can have the “stuff” necessary to create an infinite amount of universes without requiring a time ruled cause-and-effect chain of events (as we understand causality to be, that is).

If you want to argue that there is some “super-consciousness” that exists somewhere in these greater dimensions (or IS these greater dimensions) that created our universe, then great, but the “God” as defined in your bible is definitely not this being.[/quote]

The bible isn’t a history book, a science book or a math book, it never was and never will be. Therefore it is not constrained by such rules as those other disciplines you mentioned. Saying a cook book doesn’t give accurate dimensions to build a deck doesn’t make the cook book invalid.
Second, it’s pretty clear you’ve never read it or you’d realize why what you said is irrelevant. I love critiquing book I never read. I heard ‘Don Quixote’ is a piece of shit, I agree and I never read it…

Second, I am well aware of String Theory which you aptly butchered above. I like string theory quite a bit, but it does not posit an still cannot posit ‘something from nothing’ which the atheist must do. Further, causation is not bound by time, it can occur in or out of it. I never argued a temporal succession in causation. In fact I argued the opposite. In metaphysics, there is no time, but there is causation.

You made to many assumptions. I am not an evangelical biblical literalalist. I like science and theoretical sciences very much. But I also know that through out history science has also been mostly wrong.

259

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I’ve had friends, former Catholics turned agnostics just like myself, who have had lengthy conversations with priests. At the end, the priests told them that as long as they believed in “something,” that they were okay in terms of they still had a shot of getting into heaven.

For the Catholics: Is this accurate?
[/quote]

Uh, sort of, but not quite that simple. The fact that you have become disenchanted with the faith does not excuse you from knowing, loving and serving God. Because of your exposure, this you must do, versus someone who has not had exposure to any kind of faith or God in general.
You may not like the faith, but you are not excused from leading a God-centered life.

260

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
It’s also “natural” to assume the Earth is flat, but with a proper education it’s easy to see that this isn’t true. Humans are the most altricial animals on the planet which gives us the ability to supercede our superstitious tendencies. [/quote]
Uh, not really, no. You missed the point apparently.[/quote]

Uh, yeah really. You missed my point, it seems. From our perspective the Earth looks flat so it’s natural to assume so. Also, from our perspective, life and the natural universe looks impossible without a central planner. In both cases a greater education brings light to such things as the Earth’s shape or how weather works etc.

It’s only natural to believe in God to the extent that you are uncomfortable with what you don’t understand. [/quote]

That’s not the point at all. That’s like saying ‘yuck!’ to broccoli is human nature, and it is. But this is referring to intrinsic human behavior, not a lack of education. You did not read the article or you would not have posted this.

[/quote]

Wrong. Coming to a specious conclusion about ones environment is not analogous to ones personal dislike of broccoli. You can’t educate yourself into having different taste buds, but it’s hardly impossible to learn how weather works or what the earth is shaped like.

For example, babies are born with specific tastes (even though they will probably change over time as their senses develop), but no baby is born assuming some sort of providence is responsible for everything. This idea was invented by men in order to establish a sense of security for themselves.

I am aware, however, that there are those with a specific gene which makes them more likely to believe in God than others, but again we are the most altricial animals in existence (that we know of) and therefore are able to supersede such flaws via education. [/quote]

But that is not what is being asserted. What is being asserted is a predisposition to religious belief. Coming to a false conclusion based purely on sensory perception has nothing to do with the conversation. I am all over that senses are deceptive. Deductive reality is the only thing you can prove is real. [/quote]

I know you’re talking about a predisposition to religious belief. I’m saying that I believe it to be a psychological thing, but whether it is genetic or psychological it can be overcome by education[/quote]

Education of what? You have conclusive proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and all religion is bunk?
Sound more like you prefer to brain wash people in to thinking as you do…Yes, I know your going to call religion brain washing, but how is what you propose any different?[/quote]

… I’ve given you specific examples of what sort of education I’m talking about -_-
You’re too quick to judge me. It is a flaw not because of the conclusion, but because it is a position taken by default. No (conscious) thought has gone into it. I would say it is a flaw to assume a God is impossible without giving it any real thought. The point is intelligence, not the conclusion.

Granted, while I do recognize the possibility of God (however you define this), I don’t believe there is a God and I do think your church is a brain washing anti-intelligence cartel built on a hierarchy of ignorance
. [/quote]

Everybody starts with a position. And I am confused on what you want to educate people of then? You gotta start somewhere.[/quote]

No, everyone does not start out with a position. An infant has no conception of theism or atheism, they have no opinion on it. They can’t even be called agnostic because the question doesn’t exist in them. Besides, my point is taking a position on God without putting any real thought into it is a mistake, regardless of the conclusion. The point is intelligence.

As for something a little more ad-hoc - you can educate someone out of any given theistic religion by teaching them about the Earth’s shape, meteorology, or basic biology. While it’s rational to be open to the concept of God, it’s logical to hold the position there is no God given the lack of (veracious) evidense. [/quote]

Infants cannot argue logical points, they worry about the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, so I don’t see a point here. You cannot raise a child neutrally. What ever position on matters the parents hold will likely be the child’s first position. It’s a problem of human nature. Though human behaviour is the biggest ‘X’ factor of all things, they still tend to follow patterns to a statistically significant degree.

You can educate religion out of someone by taking a 6th grade science and social study class? You apparently know nothing of religion, then. It’s doesn’t quite work that way.

It is an illogical position to believe that nothingness can beget something. In the absence of a non-contingent element, that is what you have, Earth’s shape be damned. [/quote]

You said everybody has a position, but infants do not so this statement is wrong. Once an infant is raised it’s not an infant anymore so your next point is a non-sequitur but it is also wrong because if the question is never raised they will still be neutral anyway. Saying that they will (eventually) pick up a position from there parents is irrelevant; it’s essentially the same as saying “once this person stops being neutral, he will no longer be neutral” - well obviously, but before they are non-neutral they are neutral and since they are in fact people it is incorrect to say that nobody is neutral.

Your bible contains things that are physically, historically and logically impossible. Most of these things can be debunked with a basic understanding of history, biology or logic (other than the circular kind of course). I meant something more along the lines of a highschool diploma, but for what it’s worth I do think most of what one learns in highschool could be learnt by about grade six if taught ably, but that’s neither here nor there.

You’re straw-manning me. I never said anything about nothing creating something and in fact quantum mechanics points to no such conclusion. Rather, it is believed that there are dimensions (like spatial dimensions) greater than 4 (Length, width, depth, tetraspace/time) that go up to around 11 (some say 26, but whatever). These greater dimensions would (as the word “greater” suggests) be above time and not ruled by it. Therefore you can have the “stuff” necessary to create an infinite amount of universes without requiring a time ruled cause-and-effect chain of events (as we understand causality to be, that is).

If you want to argue that there is some “super-consciousness” that exists somewhere in these greater dimensions (or IS these greater dimensions) that created our universe, then great, but the “God” as defined in your bible is definitely not this being.[/quote]

The mere possibility of more than 4 dimensions debunks the cosmological argument, since one of its fundamental assumptions is that there must have been a “first cause”. Just another example of why absolute certainty is impossible, based on what we currently know.[/quote]

LOL! Come on forlife, you can do better than this?? Really? Dimensions are contingent entities AND they are contingent metaphysical entities, removing time from the equation. Try again.