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.

[Tcg]

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.

And a further simplification. We can find out whether a god is alive or not by praying to it. Of course, with a god it's a bit harder. A cat we can see. Maybe the gods don't like us, all of us, so they don't answer because they're jerks. Cats, jerks or otherwise, can be observed being alive or dead. Gods? Not so much, in or out of a box.


Tcg

[William]

One has to consider what the box represents.

It is not Schrodinger's cat but Schrodinger's box which creates the problem.

The box veils information.

The hypothetical cat is still based on biological creature and so will die at some point during the experiment, if the experiment goes on long enough. One will eventually smell that smell of death.

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

Aligning that to the OPTopic - this implies that one cannot know until one observes. In this, it is best not to assume.
Due to subject matter and according to one argument, any direct observation cannot be done until death and so one should not assume GOD does not exist, in the same way one can consider the cat to be either alive or dead as it cannot be both alive and dead. [it would be a zombie-cat otherwise.]

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.

This is correct re the assumption that when you die, that is the "opening of the box and observing" aspect re the question of GOD/Schrodinger's cat.
____________________________

I think that trying to use Schrodinger's cat as an analogy re the question of GOD, is a bit of a gooficity.

____________________________

[JoeyKnothead]

I think that trying to use Schrodinger's cat as an analogy re the question of GOD, is a bit of a gooficity.

It was an analogy on how something - god or not - exists independent of observation.

But boy howdy did it go off the rails

[William]

I think that trying to use Schrodinger's cat as an analogy re the question of GOD, is a bit of a gooficity.

It was an analogy on how something - god or not - exists independent of observation.

But boy howdy did it go off the rails

The implication there is that you are saying GOD exists.
____________________________________________
The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, in and of itself, is still...
...a bit of a gooficity.

[TRANSPONDER]

One has to consider what the box represents.

It is not Schrodinger's cat but Schrodinger's box which creates the problem.

The box veils information.

The hypothetical cat is still based on biological creature and so will die at some point during the experiment, if the experiment goes on long enough. One will eventually smell that smell of death.

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

Aligning that to the OPTopic - this implies that one cannot know until one observes. In this, it is best not to assume.
Due to subject matter and according to one argument, any direct observation cannot be done until death and so one should not assume GOD does not exist, in the same way one can consider the cat to be either alive or dead as it cannot be both alive and dead. [it would be a zombie-cat otherwise.]

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.

This is correct re the assumption that when you die, that is the "opening of the box and observing" aspect re the question of GOD/Schrodinger's cat.
____________________________

I think that trying to use Schrodinger's cat as an analogy re the question of GOD, is a bit of a gooficity.

____________________________

Thank you. That settles Schrodinger's hash. The cat is definitely dead. It may be prowling the streets calling for brains, but definitely dead.

But as you say, it does seem a bit goofy to use the effect to argue for God as it would imply that God exists or does not, according to which scientist looks for it.

[JoeyKnothead]

I think that trying to use Schrodinger's cat as an analogy re the question of GOD, is a bit of a gooficity.

It was an analogy on how something - god or not - exists independent of observation.

But boy howdy did it go off the rails

The implication there is that you are saying GOD exists.

Nope, not what I said.

I'm still in the no camp on that'n.

[brunumb]

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.

But ideas, values, motives and so on, all rely on a physical source which is the brain. Remove brains and all those non-physical things that you are regarding as spiritual disappear. When you said "that spirit is the original form of God" I tend to agree in the sense that gods originated in brains in the same way as those other things you regard as spiritual.

[theophile]

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.

But ideas, values, motives and so on, all rely on a physical source which is the brain. Remove brains and all those non-physical things that you are regarding as spiritual disappear. When you said "that spirit is the original form of God" I tend to agree in the sense that gods originated in brains in the same way as those other things you regard as spiritual.

I acknowledge the source of such things. (Spirits are physically grounded and physical 'brains' are their playground.) But even if they have no more existence should this ground be eliminated, that doesn't mean they don't exist, or that they aren't of supreme importance.

To take a different approach to that end, we can picture all the physical brains out there and a Venn diagram drawn across them that demarcates the current values they hold, the motivations of their actions, what direction their actions are taking them, etc. In effect, we can picture across this vast network of physical brains the various spirits that currently exist and where those spirits are operative, with individual spirits potentially cutting across the boundaries of any one brain. We can also picture a state where certain spirits are dominant, not just in individual brains but across the full network. i.e., we can see the potential power and importance of spirits (call them whatever you want) in shaping the world...

So sure, wipe out all the brains and arguably all the spirits would cease to exist (along with their attendant ideas, motives, etc.). But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Or that the implications of their existence, and the extent of their existence, isn't of supreme importance. And along that line, that spirits aren't capable of rising to the level of theism, and everything we would expect of God. (Especially if a certain spirit, let's call it God, becomes dominant...)

In other words, I'm agreeable to everything you say here, but it doesn't address my point or where I'm going with all this.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to theophile in post #178]

Ah- that was the human spirit = supernatural spirits equivocation came from. Bottom line, what is undisprovable is not evidence. The fantasy about interconnected human supernatural something is not a valid claim until you validate it; it is not a Faithclaim that is to be considered true until 100% disproven.

Top line, what is real is what would exist so far as all the evidence indicates, even if no humans were around. e.g I can't prove that as soon as the last conscious human dies, the entire universe winks out of existence, but there is no evidence -based reason to suppose that will happen. so it is not a viable or plausible hypothesis, but a mere fantasy, with no credibility or substance.

Medium line, Human mental constructs exist, as Brunum saith, even apart from the physical paraphernalia like musical instruments, paints and canvas and football boots and body armour - the ideas are real (as constructs as well as neural signals), just as the rules of physics are real, apart from the material they affect. But the rules of physics are natural that would still be there even if there were no humans, but the mental 'spirit' of art, music and..er...football.. .is real and exists, even if we can't bang it on a table and, of course, it wouldn't exist without humans to invent it. Like the rest of the 'spiritual, so far as evidence can show.

[William]

I think that trying to use Schrodinger's cat as an analogy re the question of GOD, is a bit of a gooficity.

It was an analogy on how something - god or not - exists independent of observation.

But boy howdy did it go off the rails

The implication there is that you are saying GOD exists.

Nope, not what I said.

I'm still in the no camp on that'n.

Looking back on previous conversations;