Religious Belief is Human Nature?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
441

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
We’re discussing your stubborn refusal to admit that other arguments, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVEN, could be true. Failing to prove the cosmological argument false doesn’t prove it’s true, nor does it prove other arguments aren’t true. Yet you continue to act as if the cosmological argument MUST be true until proven otherwise. THAT is the confirmatory bias I’m talking about.

You just gave me a circular argument for god instead of what I asked. Listen to yourself:

God is noncontingent because he is god, so he cannot be contingent, otherwise he wouldn’t be god.
[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I said that God must be non-contingent or he is not God. Because and Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition, be caused. The argument demands it must be true. That’s not circular. I didn’t say ‘God is uncaused because he’s God’. The argument demands the result be an ‘Uncaused-cause’. That is the only solution to the problem.

See above…

I was actually looking forward to exploring virtual particles, flat universe, M-theory, etc. but realized I’m in the wrong forum for that. I thought if any believer would be open to genuinely considering these arguments, it would be you, but the more we’ve talked the more clear it has become that you are operating under a confirmatory bias, and are permanently stuck on the cosmological argument as the only possibility. You’ve said it yourself: the more you discuss the cosmological argument, the more convinced you become that it must be true. Unfortunately, it’s the nature of the beast that people wth a confirmatory bias NEVER see it in themselves, but it’s crystal clear to me.

Besides, we have plenty of other things to talk about. I like you and don’t intend any offense, I just honestly believe that discussions like this are a dead end trail due to your current beliefs.[/quote]
The things you brought up have to do with attacking the second premise of the kalam argument, or atleast in your own mind try to show that the universe is not contingent according to the argument from contingency. Now from the contingency argument we start from a contingent thing exist, mainly this universe and deduce there must one non-contingent or necessary being. Now singularities are not non-contingent or necessary because this singularity becomes the universe which is contingent nor is there any logical contraction in saying that the universe or singularity could cease to exist. One looks at what properties this necessary being must have, a few of which is the ability to bring contingent things into existence, being eternal etc… . Pat calls this being God and classically only God has these properties.

Here is a link on “Hawking and Hartle’s no boundary proposal” you may find interesting.

I haven’t addressed you in a while anyways how can you claim a level of certainty for your beliefs on which you interpret “reliable” evidence when naturalism undermines the reliability of your cognitive faculties and sense perceptions.

442

Joab, thanks for the link to the Hawking critique; I look forward to reading it.

If you’ve read my posts, you realize I don’t claim to have absolute certainty about anything, except my own ignorance.

443

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]

The universe was created by Chuck Norris.

You cannot refute this. [/quote]

Yes you can.

This I am sure would be difficult.

Yes you can.[/quote]

Well then please do so.

Either one would be fine.

[/quote]

  1. The Universe’s cause has to be an adequate cause
  2. An adequate cause cannot be a lesser than its effect
  3. Chuck Norris is a lesser effect of the Universe
  4. Therefore, Chuck Norris did not cause the Universe[/quote]

Your premise is flawed.

I am not talking about Chuck Norris current incarnation but about his transcending essence.

He roundhouse kicked himself into being and one the backswing created the universe.

You cannot DISPROVE THIS !!![/quote]

Well your making the claim therefore you have to prove ^ this… You never specified which incarnation of Chuck Norris you were referring to. You really need to be specific.[/quote]

Chuck Norris is eternal.

Chuck Norris just is.

There is only one Chuck Norris who sometimes blesses us with an incarnation.

444

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
We’re discussing your stubborn refusal to admit that other arguments, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVEN, could be true. Failing to prove the cosmological argument false doesn’t prove it’s true, nor does it prove other arguments aren’t true. Yet you continue to act as if the cosmological argument MUST be true until proven otherwise. THAT is the confirmatory bias I’m talking about.

You just gave me a circular argument for god instead of what I asked. Listen to yourself:

God is noncontingent because he is god, so he cannot be contingent, otherwise he wouldn’t be god.
[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I said that God must be non-contingent or he is not God. Because and Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition, be caused. The argument demands it must be true. That’s not circular. I didn’t say ‘God is uncaused because he’s God’. The argument demands the result be an ‘Uncaused-cause’. That is the only solution to the problem.

See above…

I was actually looking forward to exploring virtual particles, flat universe, M-theory, etc. but realized I’m in the wrong forum for that. I thought if any believer would be open to genuinely considering these arguments, it would be you, but the more we’ve talked the more clear it has become that you are operating under a confirmatory bias, and are permanently stuck on the cosmological argument as the only possibility. You’ve said it yourself: the more you discuss the cosmological argument, the more convinced you become that it must be true. Unfortunately, it’s the nature of the beast that people wth a confirmatory bias NEVER see it in themselves, but it’s crystal clear to me.

Besides, we have plenty of other things to talk about. I like you and don’t intend any offense, I just honestly believe that discussions like this are a dead end trail due to your current beliefs.[/quote]

I am all for discussing the a fore mentioned theories. If you try to use them to debunk cosmology, I’ll show you where you are wrong. Flat universe isn’t really a creative modality, it speaks to the current state of the universe, M-Theory is interesting as being a ‘flavor’ of string theory and it completely compatible with the cosmological argument. It does not claim ‘something from nothing’ it actually doesn’t speak to that.

The mistake your making is based on assumptions. You are assuming that I am saying that because the cosmological argument is true that it means that God whammied the universe into existence. Like I said a million times, that does not matter to the argument. Even if the ‘accordion universe’ theory was true, cosmology would stand, if the universe has always existed, cosmology would still stand. If millions of universes simultaneously exist cosmology remains unaffected.

Even if Chuck norris, kicked the universe into existence, cosmology remains unaffected.

If you want to talk science, I am fine. If you want to make science replace God, your going to get an argument against it.

445

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]

The universe was created by Chuck Norris.

You cannot refute this. [/quote]

Yes you can.

This I am sure would be difficult.

Yes you can.[/quote]

Well then please do so.

Either one would be fine.

[/quote]

  1. The Universe’s cause has to be an adequate cause
  2. An adequate cause cannot be a lesser than its effect
  3. Chuck Norris is a lesser effect of the Universe
  4. Therefore, Chuck Norris did not cause the Universe[/quote]

Your premise is flawed.

I am not talking about Chuck Norris current incarnation but about his transcending essence.

He roundhouse kicked himself into being and one the backswing created the universe.

You cannot DISPROVE THIS !!![/quote]

Well your making the claim therefore you have to prove ^ this… You never specified which incarnation of Chuck Norris you were referring to. You really need to be specific.[/quote]

Chuck Norris is eternal.

Chuck Norris just is.

There is only one Chuck Norris who sometimes blesses us with an incarnation.[/quote]

Circular argument. Try again.

446

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
We’re discussing your stubborn refusal to admit that other arguments, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVEN, could be true. Failing to prove the cosmological argument false doesn’t prove it’s true, nor does it prove other arguments aren’t true. Yet you continue to act as if the cosmological argument MUST be true until proven otherwise. THAT is the confirmatory bias I’m talking about.

You just gave me a circular argument for god instead of what I asked. Listen to yourself:

God is noncontingent because he is god, so he cannot be contingent, otherwise he wouldn’t be god.
[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I said that God must be non-contingent or he is not God. Because and Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition, be caused. The argument demands it must be true. That’s not circular. I didn’t say ‘God is uncaused because he’s God’. The argument demands the result be an ‘Uncaused-cause’. That is the only solution to the problem.

See above…

I was actually looking forward to exploring virtual particles, flat universe, M-theory, etc. but realized I’m in the wrong forum for that. I thought if any believer would be open to genuinely considering these arguments, it would be you, but the more we’ve talked the more clear it has become that you are operating under a confirmatory bias, and are permanently stuck on the cosmological argument as the only possibility. You’ve said it yourself: the more you discuss the cosmological argument, the more convinced you become that it must be true. Unfortunately, it’s the nature of the beast that people wth a confirmatory bias NEVER see it in themselves, but it’s crystal clear to me.

Besides, we have plenty of other things to talk about. I like you and don’t intend any offense, I just honestly believe that discussions like this are a dead end trail due to your current beliefs.[/quote]
The things you brought up have to do with attacking the second premise of the kalam argument, or atleast in your own mind try to show that the universe is not contingent according to the argument from contingency. Now from the contingency argument we start from a contingent thing exist, mainly this universe and deduce there must one non-contingent or necessary being. Now singularities are not non-contingent or necessary because this singularity becomes the universe which is contingent nor is there any logical contraction in saying that the universe or singularity could cease to exist. One looks at what properties this necessary being must have, a few of which is the ability to bring contingent things into existence, being eternal etc… . Pat calls this being God and classically only God has these properties.

Here is a link on “Hawking and Hartle’s no boundary proposal” you may find interesting.

I haven’t addressed you in a while anyways how can you claim a level of certainty for your beliefs on which you interpret “reliable” evidence when naturalism undermines the reliability of your cognitive faculties and sense perceptions.[/quote]

Or in otherwors, as long as you have something, you cannot have nothing.

447

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
We’re discussing your stubborn refusal to admit that other arguments, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVEN, could be true. Failing to prove the cosmological argument false doesn’t prove it’s true, nor does it prove other arguments aren’t true. Yet you continue to act as if the cosmological argument MUST be true until proven otherwise. THAT is the confirmatory bias I’m talking about.

You just gave me a circular argument for god instead of what I asked. Listen to yourself:

God is noncontingent because he is god, so he cannot be contingent, otherwise he wouldn’t be god.
[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I said that God must be non-contingent or he is not God. Because and Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition, be caused. The argument demands it must be true. That’s not circular. I didn’t say ‘God is uncaused because he’s God’. The argument demands the result be an ‘Uncaused-cause’. That is the only solution to the problem.

See above…

I was actually looking forward to exploring virtual particles, flat universe, M-theory, etc. but realized I’m in the wrong forum for that. I thought if any believer would be open to genuinely considering these arguments, it would be you, but the more we’ve talked the more clear it has become that you are operating under a confirmatory bias, and are permanently stuck on the cosmological argument as the only possibility. You’ve said it yourself: the more you discuss the cosmological argument, the more convinced you become that it must be true. Unfortunately, it’s the nature of the beast that people wth a confirmatory bias NEVER see it in themselves, but it’s crystal clear to me.

Besides, we have plenty of other things to talk about. I like you and don’t intend any offense, I just honestly believe that discussions like this are a dead end trail due to your current beliefs.[/quote]

I am all for discussing the a fore mentioned theories. If you try to use them to debunk cosmology, I’ll show you where you are wrong. Flat universe isn’t really a creative modality, it speaks to the current state of the universe, M-Theory is interesting as being a ‘flavor’ of string theory and it completely compatible with the cosmological argument. It does not claim ‘something from nothing’ it actually doesn’t speak to that.

The mistake your making is based on assumptions. You are assuming that I am saying that because the cosmological argument is true that it means that God whammied the universe into existence. Like I said a million times, that does not matter to the argument. Even if the ‘accordion universe’ theory was true, cosmology would stand, if the universe has always existed, cosmology would still stand. If millions of universes simultaneously exist cosmology remains unaffected.

Even if Chuck norris, kicked the universe into existence, cosmology remains unaffected.

If you want to talk science, I am fine. If you want to make science replace God, your going to get an argument against it.[/quote]

I’m not interested in only discussing arguments that confirm your belief in a god. I don’t believe that is in the spirit of honest inquiry, since the conclusion has already been predetermined. Like I said, it’s a dead end road.

I’ve realized that truly open discussions are better suited to philosophical and scientific forums, where people haven’t already decided they know the answers. They’re still human, and are still subject to confirmatory bias, but at least they are more likely to be self-aware of those biases, and gauge their certainty accordingly.

Again, I mean no offense and look forward to discussions on other topics.

448

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
We’re discussing your stubborn refusal to admit that other arguments, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVEN, could be true. Failing to prove the cosmological argument false doesn’t prove it’s true, nor does it prove other arguments aren’t true. Yet you continue to act as if the cosmological argument MUST be true until proven otherwise. THAT is the confirmatory bias I’m talking about.

You just gave me a circular argument for god instead of what I asked. Listen to yourself:

God is noncontingent because he is god, so he cannot be contingent, otherwise he wouldn’t be god.
[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I said that God must be non-contingent or he is not God. Because and Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition, be caused. The argument demands it must be true. That’s not circular. I didn’t say ‘God is uncaused because he’s God’. The argument demands the result be an ‘Uncaused-cause’. That is the only solution to the problem.

See above…

I was actually looking forward to exploring virtual particles, flat universe, M-theory, etc. but realized I’m in the wrong forum for that. I thought if any believer would be open to genuinely considering these arguments, it would be you, but the more we’ve talked the more clear it has become that you are operating under a confirmatory bias, and are permanently stuck on the cosmological argument as the only possibility. You’ve said it yourself: the more you discuss the cosmological argument, the more convinced you become that it must be true. Unfortunately, it’s the nature of the beast that people wth a confirmatory bias NEVER see it in themselves, but it’s crystal clear to me.

Besides, we have plenty of other things to talk about. I like you and don’t intend any offense, I just honestly believe that discussions like this are a dead end trail due to your current beliefs.[/quote]

I am all for discussing the a fore mentioned theories. If you try to use them to debunk cosmology, I’ll show you where you are wrong. Flat universe isn’t really a creative modality, it speaks to the current state of the universe, M-Theory is interesting as being a ‘flavor’ of string theory and it completely compatible with the cosmological argument. It does not claim ‘something from nothing’ it actually doesn’t speak to that.

The mistake your making is based on assumptions. You are assuming that I am saying that because the cosmological argument is true that it means that God whammied the universe into existence. Like I said a million times, that does not matter to the argument. Even if the ‘accordion universe’ theory was true, cosmology would stand, if the universe has always existed, cosmology would still stand. If millions of universes simultaneously exist cosmology remains unaffected.

Even if Chuck norris, kicked the universe into existence, cosmology remains unaffected.

If you want to talk science, I am fine. If you want to make science replace God, your going to get an argument against it.[/quote]

I’m not interested in only discussing arguments that confirm your belief in a god. I don’t believe that is in the spirit of honest inquiry, since the conclusion has already been predetermined. Like I said, it’s a dead end road.
[/quote]
You should have picked a different topic, you did start this dialog after all. The conclusion wasn’t predertermed…That’s what inductive logic does. And the conclusion is correct according to the premises.
Keep in mind that cosmology was started by someone who had no knowledge of God what so ever. So you can’t really say he started with God and worked backwards.

[quote]
I’ve realized that truly open discussions are better suited to philosophical and scientific forums, where people haven’t already decided they know the answers. They’re still human, and are still subject to confirmatory bias, but at least they are more likely to be self-aware of those biases, and gauge their certainty accordingly.

Again, I mean no offense and look forward to discussions on other topics.[/quote]

You weren’t looking to discuss M-Theory, this was a religious thread and we were discussing cosmology as it refers to the existence of God. Not what the primordial soup contained prior to exploding. Or what’s going on at a sub-sub-sub atomic level.

449

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]

The universe was created by Chuck Norris.

You cannot refute this. [/quote]

Yes you can.

This I am sure would be difficult.

Yes you can.[/quote]

Well then please do so.

Either one would be fine.

[/quote]

  1. The Universe’s cause has to be an adequate cause
  2. An adequate cause cannot be a lesser than its effect
  3. Chuck Norris is a lesser effect of the Universe
  4. Therefore, Chuck Norris did not cause the Universe[/quote]

Your premise is flawed.

I am not talking about Chuck Norris current incarnation but about his transcending essence.

He roundhouse kicked himself into being and one the backswing created the universe.

You cannot DISPROVE THIS !!![/quote]

Well your making the claim therefore you have to prove ^ this… You never specified which incarnation of Chuck Norris you were referring to. You really need to be specific.[/quote]

Chuck Norris is eternal.

Chuck Norris just is.

There is only one Chuck Norris who sometimes blesses us with an incarnation.[/quote]

Circular argument. Try again.[/quote]

Why?

You cannot disprove it!

450

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< So, leaving Peter for Judas?[/quote]Alight already LOL!!! I can’t take it any more. I’m biting. What do you mean by this? I’m honestly not sure.

451

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< So, leaving Peter for Judas?[/quote]Alight already LOL!!! I can’t take it any more. I’m biting. What do you mean by this? I’m honestly not sure.
[/quote]

Clearly, Peter is the Pope and Judas is Calvin.

452

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
excomunicated Hitler.
[/quote]

Hitler excommunicated himself. I believe the Latin is, erit excommunicatus invenerit statim, ipso facto.

That may or may not be bad as I didn’t translate it, just pulled from my shaky memory. But basically, by the fact of the person doing the act it is an immediate excommunication, no one has to declare it.

I don’t have much knowledge on the German Bishop during WWII, but I am sure you’d enjoy the book written by the Rabbi:

This is not about a declaration as to his spiritual fate, it is about unambigiously declaring that is “ordainment” is void because he is acting against the will of God.

If the Church could not bring herself to do that in this circumstance, the message is quite clear: obey. [/quote]

What on earth do you expect Pope Pius to have done? What are you thinking, that Pope Pius could have ordered the Inquisition to take custody of Hitler and the Nazi leadership and bring them to Rome for trial! The German Bishops ex-communicated all active Nazi’s in February 1931, and yet thanks to the Marxists, the German voters abandoned the moderate political parties and fled to the Nazis during the 1931 Reichstag election anyway!

Pope Pius was more vocal in his criticism of the Nazis than the American Rabbinate. The American Rabbis held two anti-Nazi demonstrations in the safety of Washington DC. The Vatican was surrounded by the anti-Catholic Italian Fascist and then the German Nazi armies for most of the war. The Vatican was penetrated by two Italian Fascist and four German Nazi intelligence operations during WWII. Nonetheless, Pope Pius and the Vatican coordinated German Catholic military anti-Nazi resistance in Germany with British MI6 in an effort to overthrow Hitler. Hitler was so infuriated with Papal opposition that he ordered the Germany military to invade the Vatican and imprison Pope Pius XII. The invasion of the Vatican was thwarted because Pope Pius personally turned the German general in charge of the invasion into a double agent!

453

[quote]forlife wrote:
crystal clear to me.
[/quote]

It is for me for you.

454

[quote]orion wrote:
Chuck Norris is eternal.

Chuck Norris just is.

There is only one Chuck Norris who sometimes blesses us with an incarnation.[/quote]

I believe the affirmative is placed with the burden of proof.

455

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< So, leaving Peter for Judas?[/quote]Alight already LOL!!! I can’t take it any more. I’m biting. What do you mean by this? I’m honestly not sure.
[/quote]

Clearly, Peter is the Pope and Judas is Calvin.[/quote]

I guess you could take it that way, but I meant it more that Tirib takes the bad people, which are in every religion, and uses it to ‘prove’ that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach the real gospel. That is of course compared to looking at the saints of the Church to judge the Catholic Church. He is leaving Peter because of Judas.

456

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
crystal clear to me.
[/quote]

It is for me for you.[/quote]

Being human, we’re both subject to confirmatory bias. The difference between us is that I acknowledge this in myself and gauge my certitude accordingly, while you don’t.

457

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
crystal clear to me.
[/quote]

It is for me for you.[/quote]

Being human, we’re both subject to confirmatory bias. The difference between us is that I acknowledge this in myself and gauge my certitude accordingly, while you don’t.[/quote]

How do you know this? And, how do you suppose I further acknowledge this in myself and gauge my certitude accordingly?

458

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Orion, you’ll find that when you throw their own absurd premises back in their faces, they will resort to accusing you of being childish.

I tried this when I postulated that if God is the Alpha and Omega, the creator of all, then evil is His creation too, and for us to rebel against His creation is a sin. Especially when they claim everything of God is good. Making evil good.[/quote]

Hey you and tirib have the same outlook…Did you become reformed baptist too?[/quote]

Difference between me and Tirib is he actually believes the crazy talk.

459

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Especially when they claim everything of God is good. Making evil good.[/quote]

You’d need to clarify the meaning of “of” in your sentence above. [/quote]

Everything made by God, if I’m interpreting the ‘in’ in your sentence above.

460

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Chuck Norris is eternal.

Chuck Norris just is.

There is only one Chuck Norris who sometimes blesses us with an incarnation.[/quote]

I believe the affirmative is placed with the burden of proof.[/quote]

AHAHAHAHA