Is it reasonable to believe in God?

[historia]

Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Note, the question here is not whether you think it is true that God exists, but simply whether such a belief is reasonable or not.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #156]

Meh. Reality is reality, no matter how much pseudointellectual terminology we wanna tack onto it.

Belief-based handwaving away the science as "pseudo" does not make it so.

It's a pretentiousness I don't seek to entertain.

Your beliefs allow you to call it such, I grant you that.

I'll leave the observer to their conclusions in this matter.

It can be no other way re those who have already drawn conclusion enough to engage in belief.

[JoeyKnothead]

No, 'spirit' is where we recognize that there are two types of existence in this world, and in the process expand our knowledge by considering this broader domain of being. I'm not talking ghosts or alternate realities here, such that we ought to go visit a medium or pick up a ouija board, but something we all know from our own physical experience, because frankly we have all encountered such things before.

Again, what else is an idea (like atheism) but a non-physical form of existence? Are you telling me that the idea of atheism doesn't exist? Even if it's all in our heads, it's undeniably there, and it has a real power to affect us just like other spirit entities (e.g., values, dreams, etc.).

Thoughts are spirit?

I'm curious as to why you're using theistic language here.

So get over your bias against the biblical terminology already (the word 'spirit'), because I'm not saying anything unreasonable here. There is a physical world, which is comprised of matter, governed by natural laws, and measurable through science (all of which has nothing to do with God), and there is the spiritual, call it an immanent but also emergent world of ideas and other insubstantial things that have an identifiable existence that isn't reducible to their physical form.

Thoughts are pretty well confirmed to be a product of the physical brain, so again, I'm curious to know why you call such "spirit".

Take justice as another example (if atheism was too simplistic). There is an idea of justice that can be abstracted from any writings on the matter, acts of retribution, or actual court verdicts. It motivates (/affects!) those who write about it, act, or rule on its behalf. Entire movements can form around it and for the sake of it! (See 'Me Too' for example.)

We should expect a growing tribe to need some form of law and order to keep the tribe from tearing itself apart. Can't have one of the members going about lying how his rocks got stolen.

So are you saying there isn't an idea of justice? Or that some non-physical thing, let's call it justice, doesn't transpire in the moment of a fair ruling or comeuppance?

Of course there's ideas.

How does such a condition confirm, for you, that such ideas are the product of spirit?

If someone gets some school spirit like the cheerleaders holler about, is that a theistic experience?

My only point in all this is that if we want to debate the reasonableness of God, we have to first recognize that God is originally of a spiritual form (like justice).

Of course gods, and spirit are ideas.

So's magic, and mystery, and all manner of thoughts. I just don't see it as reasonable to claim the realm of thought rises to the level of theism.

I'm not saying there is some conscious / intelligent being out there called God that has always existed and directed our ways (some 'cosmic mind' as others keep implying), but something much more basic and intuitive than that. There have been no arguments offered against such an existence yet except statements of a crass materialism, but even in a materialist framework we can differentiate physical from spiritual matter and my point remains. It's in the latter category that we find God and assert a basic existence.

"Crass materialism" is what affords you the tools to tell us how much crass materialism is. Of course such tools, such materials were first the product of an idea, but 'spirit'?

We have no way of knowing what Aristotle thinks about such things, in light of humanity's vastly increased knowledge, since his untimely demise.

So, by such logic (of avoidance), should we never consult the past or recognize its wisdom? Should people 1000 years from now disregard everything we say today? Should we all just accept our own ignorance and shut up already? ... That is the natural conclusion of your point here, so why debate at all or take a position?

My point is that when we reference the thoughts of dead folks, we dismiss their ability, or possibility of changing their own position after the advancements in knowledge after so, so many years.

Have I ever imposed or threatened? Please don't generalize theism based on what we'd all probably agree are deplorable acts.

I sure coulda been more clear there, and find you among the most reasonable and likeable theists in the bunch. I apologize and retract any or all of it that don't fit you.

Unless you have a broader point here other than making some cheap shot?

My point is, in considering the OP, the reasonableness of God belief, we see throughout history where that belief has produced not only unreasonable thoughts, but unreasonable actions.

As well, in considering the OP, I think it's unreasonable to conflate thoughts and ideas with 'spirit', or to assert that's the most reasonable way to go.

[JoeyKnothead]

Belief-based handwaving away the science as "pseudo" does not make it so.

Nor does tacking on additional terms make reality something other than a binary proposition, something either exists in reality, or it doesn't.

I'm reminded of Schrodinger's cat here. A simplification, but I think it apt...

In the thought experiment, the cat's considered both alive and dead, until it's observed.

I say when we open that box, we'll find out it was either alive the whole time, or dead the whole time, and our previously not being able to observe it didn't change that fact.

[TRANSPONDER]

Belief-based handwaving away the science as "pseudo" does not make it so.

Nor does tacking on additional terms make reality something other than a binary proposition, something either exists in reality, or it doesn't.

I'm reminded of Schrodinger's cat here. A simplification, but I think it apt...

In the thought experiment, the cat's considered both alive and dead, until it's observed.

I say when we open that box, we'll find out it was either alive the whole time, or dead the whole time, and our previously not being able to observe it didn't change that fact.

I'm no scientist or philosopher, but I always gathered that Schrodinger's cat was a Physics explanation, not a philosophical one. Correct me if I have this wrong but of course, philosophically a cat alive or dead in the box (like an apple in the box or banana in the drawer) is potentially so or not so until you look. This is about what one knows and what one believes. But Schrodinger was, I thought about quantum physics and the slit experiment which showed that an event is both so and not so until the observer looks and determines which one it is. Leading of course to the Christian Fundamentalists claim that the scientist creates the result of an experiment (so science can't be trusted on anything).

What this has to do with God I no know , but I suspect it is wooish water - muddying to make us believe all sorts of Chopharesque woo -claims by attaching all kinds of impressive sciencey - sounding names (fundamental Reality is one that comes to mind) to a lot of invisible and impalpable 'beyond the universe' claims. "Quantum" and "Consciousness" all had their time. Essentially appealing to the unknowns (or at least not generally understood) to make the layperson doubt everything they thought they knew and use that as a gap for "God". "Imperfect human perception" is another god -apologetic without having to appeal to the Bible. Which sortagoddists (irreligious theists) tend not to do.

[benchwarmer]

I'm reminded of Schrodinger's cat here. A simplification, but I think it apt...

In the thought experiment, the cat's considered both alive and dead, until it's observed.

I say when we open that box, we'll find out it was either alive the whole time, or dead the whole time, and our previously not being able to observe it didn't change that fact.

Just because I'm picky this morning (hey, who am I kidding, I'm always picky), the part I bolded above is not necessarily correct. The cat may have been alive for a bit, then died. No way to confirm it was dead the entire time without doing some extra investigation on the body. i.e. predictions based on decomposition, etc.

Anyway, sorry for the completely off topic nitpick on one of my favorite forum buddies

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #165]


Of course that adds a whole extra dimension to Schrodinger's cat, it was alive and now isn't. But aside from wadding time together so it all happens at the same time (which to complicate it even further is what God is supposed to do so he knows all the outcomes and selects the best - or...damn, no I will Not do a foopnote...of all universes, or at least the one that suits Him), it is a question of both alternative outcomes existing at the same time, not potentially but haven't happened yet, but both exist in actuality and which actuality is 'ours' happens when the scientist observes it. This leads to alternate universe and film that can do what they like with Canon because of Quantum.

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm no scientist or philosopher, but I always gathered that Schrodinger's cat was a Physics explanation, not a philosophical one. Correct me if I have this wrong but of course, philosophically a cat alive or dead in the box (like an apple in the box or banana in the drawer) is potentially so or not so until you look. This is about what one knows and what one believes. But Schrodinger was, I thought about quantum physics and the slit experiment which showed that an event is both so and not so until the observer looks and determines which one it is. Leading of course to the Christian Fundamentalists claim that the scientist creates the result of an experiment (so science can't be trusted on anything).

What this has to do with God I no know , but I suspect it is wooish water - muddying to make us believe all sorts of Chopharesque woo -claims by attaching all kinds of impressive sciencey - sounding names (fundamental Reality is one that comes to mind) to a lot of invisible and impalpable 'beyond the universe' claims. "Quantum" and "Consciousness" all had their time. Essentially appealing to the unknowns (or at least not generally understood) to make the layperson doubt everything they thought they knew and use that as a gap for "God". "Imperfect human perception" is another god -apologetic without having to appeal to the Bible. Which sortagoddists (irreligious theists) tend not to do.

Fer sher. I was simplifying to make a point about reality.

My point was that the state of the cat - alive or dead - is independent of our observing it inside that box.

Where some carry on about a "fundamental reality", it's my position that "fundamental" bit there is superfluous. Reality is a go / nogo proposition, it doesn't need the muddied waters of "fundamental".

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm reminded of Schrodinger's cat here. A simplification, but I think it apt...

In the thought experiment, the cat's considered both alive and dead, until it's observed.

I say when we open that box, we'll find out it was either alive the whole time, or dead the whole time, and our previously not being able to observe it didn't change that fact.

Just because I'm picky this morning (hey, who am I kidding, I'm always picky), the part I bolded above is not necessarily correct. The cat may have been alive for a bit, then died. No way to confirm it was dead the entire time without doing some extra investigation on the body. i.e. predictions based on decomposition, etc.

Anyway, sorry for the completely off topic nitpick on one of my favorite forum buddies

Or, it was dead there for a bit, then suddenly... JESUS CAT!

[theophile]

No, 'spirit' is where we recognize that there are two types of existence in this world, and in the process expand our knowledge by considering this broader domain of being. I'm not talking ghosts or alternate realities here, such that we ought to go visit a medium or pick up a ouija board, but something we all know from our own physical experience, because frankly we have all encountered such things before.

Again, what else is an idea (like atheism) but a non-physical form of existence? Are you telling me that the idea of atheism doesn't exist? Even if it's all in our heads, it's undeniably there, and it has a real power to affect us just like other spirit entities (e.g., values, dreams, etc.).

Thoughts are spirit?

I'm curious as to why you're using theistic language here.

Call it semantics. One key attribute of what I'm calling the spiritual is that it's non-physical. So frankly, I would classify anything non-physical into that bucket for now (call it whatever you want), and that includes ideas. Also things like values, motives, ends, etc. I'm also trying to work within the framework provided by the bible, where 'spirit' is a central term (again, God's original description in Genesis 1 is as such). So more importantly I'm trying to stake out that ground in a reasonable way, and build a beachhead of existence for God...

But I have been speaking in general terms (i.e., of a 'spirit realm'). So let me take a crack at defining what a spirit per se is, and hence why I include things like ideas in it as a sub-category: a spirit is a coherent nexus of non-physical things (including ideas) that when combined in such and such a way takes on an identity and life* of its own.

For example, 'the spirit of capitalism' or 'the spirit of a nation' or 'the spirit of God'. These emergent entities are a complex system of values, ideas, motives, and ends that, so combined, become uniquely identifiable as such, with the power to 'speak' to us / take hold of us, and in the process have real affect on the physical world.

*I don't mean to say by this that a spirit is a living thing, but more that it has a dynamic form. It can persist or change over time. It's power (or physical representation) can ebb and flow. It can motivate and move the physical world, both on the individual level and society as a whole... (Just as the bible shows.)

So get over your bias against the biblical terminology already (the word 'spirit'), because I'm not saying anything unreasonable here. There is a physical world, which is comprised of matter, governed by natural laws, and measurable through science (all of which has nothing to do with God), and there is the spiritual, call it an immanent but also emergent world of ideas and other insubstantial things that have an identifiable existence that isn't reducible to their physical form.

Thoughts are pretty well confirmed to be a product of the physical brain, so again, I'm curious to know why you call such "spirit".

Hopefully the above commentary helped clarify. And to be clear, I agree that spirits and other spirit realm entities such as ideas are emergent from the physical world. But the fact that a physical brain produced these non-physical entities means almost nothing for their existence once produced. Just consider other emergent entities, say, life from chemical interactions, or consciousness from life: the emergent entity is not of the same order / kind as what they came from, nor is their existence necessarily constrained by the same set of rules. They have different properties and forms of existence that need to be understood on their own terms.

So calling it something jarring (like spirit) helps us mentally make that separation, and perhaps get closer to what is meant by God.

If someone gets some school spirit like the cheerleaders holler about, is that a theistic experience?

No. Not all spirits are God. But this is for sure an example of spirit. It carries ideas of pride, belonging, and identity (mottoes, mascots, etc.); it motivates through competition and the desire to win. It envisions victory in sports and other extra/curricular pursuits. Its power ebbs and flows throughout time based on school performance or approaching events (like homecoming). So such an example is 100% a spirit, i.e., a complex of non-physical things, uniquely identifiable, and with the ability to motivate and move physical beings in the world.

My only point in all this is that if we want to debate the reasonableness of God, we have to first recognize that God is originally of a spiritual form (like justice).

Of course gods, and spirit are ideas.

So's magic, and mystery, and all manner of thoughts. I just don't see it as reasonable to claim the realm of thought rises to the level of theism.

Spirits have the power to motivate and move those of physical matter not just to the mundane (like participating in a school rally) but also to great and terrible things... Spirits of varying degrees are literally behind all non-natural events. They are necessary to direct the shaping, not just of our individual lives, but the broader world. (Without spirit, we never rise above the domain of physical matter and its random interactions / effects, which granted has gotten us pretty far -- to the point of consciousness -- but questionable if it can take us any further than this...)

So do such properties allow spirit to rise to the level of theism? Spirit certainly doesn't yield a God who is supreme being and maker of all that is, at least not out of the gate. But it does open a path to such a God, i.e., a God that is not just of insubstantial (spiritual) form, but that has real, physical representation in the world. (What is Yahweh or Christ for example but a physical being in the spirit of God?...)

That's why I tried to emphasize that spirit is the original form of God (what we see in Genesis 1). Not necessarily the intermediate or final form (when God is all in all).

... in considering the OP, I think it's unreasonable to conflate thoughts and ideas with 'spirit', or to assert that's the most reasonable way to go.

Is it more reasonable to assert a God out of the gate who is the supreme being and maker of all that is?

***

I truly appreciate the thoughtful questions and consideration.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm no scientist or philosopher, but I always gathered that Schrodinger's cat was a Physics explanation, not a philosophical one. Correct me if I have this wrong but of course, philosophically a cat alive or dead in the box (like an apple in the box or banana in the drawer) is potentially so or not so until you look. This is about what one knows and what one believes. But Schrodinger was, I thought about quantum physics and the slit experiment which showed that an event is both so and not so until the observer looks and determines which one it is. Leading of course to the Christian Fundamentalists claim that the scientist creates the result of an experiment (so science can't be trusted on anything).

What this has to do with God I no know , but I suspect it is wooish water - muddying to make us believe all sorts of Chopharesque woo -claims by attaching all kinds of impressive sciencey - sounding names (fundamental Reality is one that comes to mind) to a lot of invisible and impalpable 'beyond the universe' claims. "Quantum" and "Consciousness" all had their time. Essentially appealing to the unknowns (or at least not generally understood) to make the layperson doubt everything they thought they knew and use that as a gap for "God". "Imperfect human perception" is another god -apologetic without having to appeal to the Bible. Which sortagoddists (irreligious theists) tend not to do.

Fer sher. I was simplifying to make a point about reality.

My point was that the state of the cat - alive or dead - is independent of our observing it inside that box.

Where some carry on about a "fundamental reality", it's my position that "fundamental" bit there is superfluous. Reality is a go / nogo proposition, it doesn't need the muddied waters of "fundamental".

Yes. well of course reality (as distinct from human conventions) has a validity ofits' own no matter what humans think about it. Obviously, if I think the banana is in the drawer and it turns out not to be, that is the reality and (occam's razor) always was, no matter what I believed (1) and that is the factual basis of Occam's razor and the apple in the box and the nature (and logic) of Bleif and knowledge.

But Schrodingers cat appears to say that alternate realities exist and the observer selects which it is. Which doesn't make sense to me, as then the alternate reality would seem to not exist just like the philosophical altermnate possibilities. But apparently the mathematics says otherwise. So what do I know, I count on my fingers.

(1) and the denialists who are convinced the banana was there because God told them and the Devil snatched it away to discredit True believers, can only be told that isn't logical.