Does God exist? (14 Viewers)

[BradCube]

But if you really take the 'opposite world' hell to its full conclusion then existence is just as dependent on god as good, justice all that. So you might expect those entering hell to cease to exist all together.

Well, I suppose that could be one interpretation but I think we are a little beyond ourselves here since no one has even brought forward anything to suggest that hell is simply the absence of God. I would be interested to investigate whether this really is an accurate interpretation of the bible.

Also, as I've previously argued, if morality is to be non-relative then morality needs to have some basis beyond the whim of god. Thus, facts regarding what is good would necessarily persist in hell even if their realisation in actions did not.

I have major doubts about the tenability of 'opposite world' hell.

Ok, sure. Granted, if there is no objective morality, then our own opinions of what is right and wrong in hell could still exist and have meaning. However, such topics and talks seem to be pointless. Why would a God which has no objective morals condemn people for doing "sinful" or "wrong" acts?

What I am trying to say is that if there are no objective morals, then there is no reason for a God that is just and fair to send people to hell. Talk of such things seem to be begging the question of objective morality.

 

[KFunk]

Ok, sure. Granted, if there is no objective morality, then our own opinions of what is right and wrong in hell could still exist and have meaning. However, such topics and talks seem to be pointless. Why would a God which has no objective morals condemn people for doing "sinful" or "wrong" acts?

What I am trying to say is that if there are no objective morals, then there is no reason for a God that is just and fair to send people to hell. Talk of such things seem to be begging the question of objective morality.

True, but that's not what I am arguing. What I have previously argued is that if there is to be objective moral truth, then it needs to have some origin beyond god. If this is the case then what is good will likely remain good in the absence of god. To further illustrate this point I'll repost something I wrote in another thread:

'The trouble with law makers: An important question arises if one asserts that the only plausible basis for morality is divine command. The question is this - is it possible that god could have chosen a different moral law? If it is possible then you are left with a form of moral relativism because moral truth is relative to god's (possibly different) command. If it is not possible then we have a further question - why is it that it was only possible for god to dictate a certain conception of morality? In order to answer this question it seems to me that you need some fact, or set of facts, which explain why it was necessary for god to pick a certain conception of morality. Moral law is then explained not by god's command, but by this further set of facts which explains the necessity of god's command. Thus it seems that the moral facts are what is important, not the law maker as such.'

 

[Slidey]

An army of clones cannot evolve, because they merely produce copies of themselves in asexual production, as you will only have one pair of chromosomes.

An army of clones, even identical clones, would, given sexual reproduction (and even asexual reproduction), evolve over time (and away from homogeneity).

You should read up on the mechanisms for evolution, specifically random mutation. Cross-over is one of the more important mechanisms for multi-cellular organisms true, but the extreme importance you place on it isn't really warranted; there are asexual multicellular species that still evolve.

Also, asexual reproduction doesn't produce clones. In fact, one of the things that's extremely odd about the Wollemi Pine, for instance, is the fact that every tree is genetically identical; they're all clones. Now this means that they all come from one ancestor, but it's still very strange because even asexual production doesn't produce completely identical genetic code.

Also, asexual reproduction still produces evolution. See uni-cellular organisms (bacteria, some fungi, etc), as well as viruses.

Granted, though, if you want fast and varied genetic diversity in multicellular organisms, crossover is the way to go.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

 

[chilena4life]

i thought everyone might like to know that a recent study about religious intelligence vs. secular intelligence was recently posted on myspace as a feature debate...turns out that recent and past studies indicate there are a higher number of secular people with higher intelligence in comparison to religious people who have be found to be less intelligent...


funny ha ha

 

[Slidey]

i thought everyone might like to know that a recent study about religious intelligence vs. secular intelligence was recently posted on myspace as a feature debate...turns out that recent and past studies indicate there are a higher number of secular people with higher intelligence in comparison to religious people who have be found to be less intelligent...

There are a few problems with that finding.

It's more to do with living conditions and open-mindedness than the religious group being a genetically less intelligent set.

E.g. secular people are also less likely to have kids... although some might argue this as evidence for genetic predisposition of the religious for low intelligence, I find that absurd. Rather: those who are secular, are more likely to have thoroughly thought about religion (for and against), as well as other aspects of their life. The religious are more likely to take for granted that they need to get married and have kids.

For example, if that statistic is true, I bet you'll also find the secular have higher socio-economic status re education and income. How much does this impact upon intelligence?

Remembering this is all averages and stereotypes of course. Further, I have significant problems with the concept of IQ itself (both the diagnostic and the concept of pre-determined intelligence at birth), but that's tangential.

3unitz:

The fact that you brought it up in response to something completely unrelated? (i.e. the square root of -1, or i, which can be positive or negative depending on your arbitrary choice)

 

[chilena4life]

yeah i get what you're saying but i wasn't saying i agree or disagree or that its fact i was merely stating that they put that study up on myspace...but you are correct in what you're saying

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

There are a few problems with that finding.

It's more to do with living conditions and open-mindedness than the religious group being a genetically less intelligent set.

E.g. secular people are also less likely to have kids... although some might argue this as evidence for genetic predisposition of the religious for low intelligence, I find that absurd. Rather: those who are secular, are more likely to have thoroughly thought about religion (for and against), as well as other aspects of their life. The religious are more likely to take for granted that they need to get married and have kids.

For example, if that statistic is true, I bet you'll also find the secular have higher socio-economic status re education and income. How much does this impact upon intelligence?

Remembering this is all averages and stereotypes of course. Further, I have significant problems with the concept of IQ itself (both the diagnostic and the concept of pre-determined intelligence at birth), but that's tangential.

I don't see the point in bringing this up, the fact remains that as people get a better education about the world they're less likely to be religious.

 

[Slidey]

I don't see the point in bringing this up, the fact remains that as people get a better education about the world they're less likely to be religious.

I'm not the one who brough it up; chilena4life did.

 

[BradCube]

i thought everyone might like to know that a recent study about religious intelligence vs. secular intelligence was recently posted on myspace as a feature debate...turns out that recent and past studies indicate there are a higher number of secular people with higher intelligence in comparison to religious people who have be found to be less intelligent...


funny ha ha

This comment really eerked me. Probably because it implies that I am a moron or unintelligent because I lean on the side of belief in God.

I find four faults in what a study like this sets to achieve.

1 - It is an Appeal to Authority. This is because it tries to show that the position of the more intelligent person (since they are reckoned to have greater knowledge) is more accurate or true. The source of a claim such as the disbelief in God has no bearing on it's accuracy.

2 - It is an Ad hominem argument in that it discredits a claim by attacking it's source. Again this is similar to the above in that it has no bearing on the accuracy of the claim. The intelligence of a person (or lack thereof) has no bearing upon any claim they make about the existence of God.

3 - Studies such as these usually only asses forms of knowledge such as IQ which can be easily tested for. It does nothing to address other forms of knowledge such as social interaction, psychology etc.

4 - The area's in which people are educated would also have bearing upon their beliefs. ie those going to university are more likely to have non-religious or skeptical views since there is a culture that promotes such a mindset - regardless or not whether this is because of intelligence. So currently it would seem that the further you delve into eduction the less you will find religious culture. Any attempt to assert that this is because of higher intelligence should be guided back to points (1) and (2) because even if that were true the study would still hold no relevance to the argument against or for the existence of God.

 

[Stevo.]

Education frees the mind from theistic fascist dogma.

 

[Slidey]

I find four faults in what a study like this sets to achieve.

1 - It is an Appeal to Authority. This is because it tries to show that the position of the more intelligent person (since they are reckoned to have greater knowledge) is more accurate or true. The source of a claim such as the disbelief in God has no bearing on it's accuracy.

Not true. Did you even read the article you linked?

argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting

The truth value of the conclusion of said study is presumably on data gleaned from application of the scientific method (e.g. the use of IQ testing, which, for all its flaws, is not sentient with its own agenda), not an authority, entity or person.

The study likely elucidates patterns in IQ scores among social groups. It is no more or less inherently biased than any other scientific study, and it is fully possible for one to strictly and unbiasedly follow the scientific method and still arrive at the conclusion that those who are a religious have, on average, lower IQ scores.

I am not defending said conclusion, because I haven't seen the study. But your attempt to discredit the study off-hand because it offends your sensibilities is rather cheap.

2 - It is an Ad hominem argument in that it discredits a claim by attacking it's source. Again this is similar to the above in that it has no bearing on the accuracy of the claim. The intelligence of a person (or lack thereof) has no bearing upon any claim they make about the existence of God.

Again, I highly doubt the study in question makes any such judgement or attack on people of faith. Stating a statistical fact is not an implication of judgement.

There's plenty enough evidence out there of the non-existence of god, without recourse the need to resort to attacks on one's nature, in my opinion.

And that's all assuming that its worth arguing about. It might not have occured to you, but it's generally the religious who feel the need to prove/enforce the existence of God. The casual atheist may certainly find entertainment from trolling a person of faith, but questions about the existence of god actually occupy so little of their time (once they've gotten over the initial depression/glee of this finding); among atheists it is generally accepted that religion and god are silly social notions that for some reason just refuse to die, on par with things like ghosts, and with just as much evidence and logic.

3 - Studies such as these usually only asses forms of knowledge such as IQ which can be easily tested for. It does nothing to address other forms of knowledge such as social interaction, psychology etc.

Is it a problem that something is easy to test? And since when were IQ, psychology and "social interaction" forms of knowledge?

The IQ test is nothing to do with knowledge.

I think I get what you're saying, and I agree to a point. IQ is somewhat one-dimensional in its assessment (it only tests communication skills, spatial skills, abstract thinking skills). Iit fails to consider 'emotional intelligence' (as much as it annoys me to use that phrase), among other things.

Still, as far as aptitude tests go, the IQ test is somewhat useful. For example, if this study is correct, it clearly demonstrates some inherent problems with religious indoctrination (most likely in the home environment); likely sacrificing a child's abstract thinking and capability to adapt to new ideas, in favour of strict adherence to rigid dogma (which I often find to be the case when I am talking to the devout religious).

4 - The area's in which people are educated would also have bearing upon their beliefs. ie those going to university are more likely to have non-religious or skeptical views since there is a culture that promotes such a mindset - regardless or not whether this is because of intelligence. So currently it would seem that the further you delve into eduction the less you will find religious culture. Any attempt to assert that this is because of higher intelligence should be guided back to points (1) and (2) because even if that were true the study would still hold no relevance to the argument against or for the existence of God.

Come again? Sorry, why was it that those going to university are more likely not to be religious?

Still, I highly doubt that if you applied the methodology of such a study to the Australian population that you'd come to such a conclusion. Australian religious adherence is marked by overall apathy and laziness, which to me doesn't seem like an ideal environment for an IQ gap to grow. To me, it'd require religious fundamentalism, such as in any Muslim country, or in the Bible Belt of America.

You're somewhat correct in saying that this has no bearing on the existence of God. But then, at some point we do need to say "that idea is fundamentally just silly" and give up on it. The fact that the group of people who don't believe in an idea are extremely smart and knowledgeable may not be proof of the incorrectness of the idea, but it sure should start to ring alarm bells when mass independent peer review by such people doesn't paint it in a positive light.

 

[BradCube]

On Ethics:

A while back in the thread I was quite interested, and still am interested, to find out what you thought made moral/ethical claims true. Consider the proposition 'a cat is on my mat', call it CM. We might say that CM is true if and only if there is, in fact, a cat sitting on my mat. This common account of the truth of propositions is termed the correspondance theory of truth, and it holds that propositions are made true by their correspondence with facts about the way the world is. Further, the truth/falsity of descriptive propositions is typically seen as objective because, for the most part, we accept that world-describing facts are non-relative.

So then, how are we to account for the truth of moral claims? One problem is that they are commonly prescriptive, rather than descriptive. They state how the world ought to be not how it is. At first glance it would appear that descriptive facts alone will not be enough to confer truth to ethical claims. One could, of course, try to reduce prescriptive moral claims to seemingly descriptive ones like 'x is good', but I am inclined to think that prescriptivity is essential to morality as commonly conceived and that to reduce it to purely descriptive statements is to render its imperatives impotent.

Some relevant questions are then: is it at all feasible to derive prescriptive facts from descriptive empirical facts? Is it possible to justify moral claims using logic, perhaps even some logic which can handle prescriptivity (e.g. deontic logic)? Mightn't there exist moral claims which could be considered 'properly basic'?

My personal feeling is that the answers to the above questions are all negative. However, I am interested to know what you think.

I will be honest with you and say that I am having a difficult enough time trying to understand what you have written let alone formulate an answer to it! With that in mind I will will endeavor to provide you with a response to your questions here.

Is it at all feasible to derive prescriptive facts from descriptive empirical facts?

Well in relation to prescriptive facts relating to empirical data than yes it is feasible. Predictions are constantly made everyday about how something scientifically "ought" to work based on empirical data. However I assume you are talking about whether morally prescriptive ideas or facts can be supported by empirical description or data. If that is the case then the answer is a clear no since empirical data is neutral to any moral issues. This is the reason why without a God there is no real objective or absolute morality.

Is it possible to justify moral claims using logic?
Interesting question. Sure I think that logic can be used in justifying certain moral claims but only in the assumption that moral's actually truly exist. For example logic could be used to justify that raping two people is morally wrong just as it is wrong to rape one person. However, this comes with the belief that it is wrong for a human to rape another human in the first place.

Is it possible to justify morals using only logic outside of morals? Then probably not. I don't find this to be an area for concern however. It is akin to asking me to write an essay using only numbers. (Assuming the essay is not a math proof of course )

Mightn't there exist moral claims which could be considered 'properly basic'?
This is where we may differ in our opinions. I would be inclined to believe that there are moral claims which are properly basic. Just as I observe the physical world around me using properly basic beliefs (ie that my eyes, brain, senses etc are not lying to me) I can also observe the moral state of affairs around me using properly basic beliefs.

On the Argument from First Cause:

Scientists, more or less, agree that anything which exists contingently (i.e. not necessarily) must be caused. However, the flaw in the argument from first cause is to then conclude that this cause must be god. The only conlusion which is logically entailed by the argument is that a cause exists - it does not guide us towards the nature of the cause.

Yes very true. This is why I added on the end of my statement originally that "In this case, a cause that transcends the natural laws of the universe being created". I find that we can assert something of the cause if the universe by knowing what the universe currently consists of - that is all space time reality including all matter and energy. Does it not follow then that the cause of this must transcend that which it is creating? ie the cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being or object beyond space and time. As a starting point for discussion I find that to be quite a good description of what most believe God to be.

True, but that's not what I am arguing. What I have previously argued is that if there is to be objective moral truth, then it needs to have some origin beyond god. If this is the case then what is good will likely remain good in the absence of god. To further illustrate this point I'll repost something I wrote in another thread:

'The trouble with law makers: An important question arises if one asserts that the only plausible basis for morality is divine command. The question is this - is it possible that god could have chosen a different moral law? If it is possible then you are left with a form of moral relativism because moral truth is relative to god's (possibly different) command. If it is not possible then we have a further question - why is it that it was only possible for god to dictate a certain conception of morality? In order to answer this question it seems to me that you need some fact, or set of facts, which explain why it was necessary for god to pick a certain conception of morality. Moral law is then explained not by god's command, but by this further set of facts which explains the necessity of god's command. Thus it seems that the moral facts are what is important, not the law maker as such.'

So we come back to Euthyphro's dilemma. My position is that there is a third option and that is that what is good is defined through and by Gods character. In this way there is no way he "could" have chosen differently since it is based on his own unchanging character. It also means that he did not prescribe to a form of morality that is external to him (that he would have to submit to) since he is the reason alone for that true sense of "good".

 

[BradCube]

This reply is directed back at Slidey and anyone that I may have been misguided in my post Slidey was replying to.

Just want to apologize Slidey if I had been a little unclear in my original post. I was not meaning to state that the study was void in it's own right. My reason for bringing it up was that I was wary of it being used as reason to dismiss the existence of God. Such use would be fallacious or at the least misguided based on the reasoning I had provided in the previous post.

The study may be very valid in it's own right. However, even if it were true that those that were more intelligent (in all regards) did not believe in God, this in itself has no bearing on the claim that God exists. As I stated earlier I believe this is an appeal to authority. You raised that you felt that this was a weak interpretation of this appeal. I will admit that it does not fit in strictly with the definition you highlighted from the article, but I don't agree that this is not what the appeal to authority addresses. In this case if someone was to use the study as reasoning for God's non existence there argument would go like this.

God does not exist----> Intelligent people do not believe God exists ---> Therefore God does not exist.

Using the study in this way is obviously fallacious. The source of the claim has no bearing on it's accuracy. It is very similar to the appeal to authority where something must be true because there is a scientific consensus. Intelligence of a person or a group of persons within itself is not reason to believe what they say. They must show the reasons for what they say for it to carry any weight.

I think most of the other points you have understood accurately. Point (2) is very much the direct opposite of (1).

Thanks for bringing it up though

 

[Slidey]

Using the study in this way is obviously fallacious. The source of the claim has no bearing on it's accuracy. It is very similar to the appeal to authority where something must be true because there is a scientific consensus. Intelligence of a person or a group of persons within itself is not reason to believe what they say. They must show the reasons for what they say for it to carry any weight.

I acknowledge this. However, as I highlighted in my post, some types of reasoning are absurd yet not refutable. To these claims, the highest probability of correct resolution seems to be found via methods along the lines of appeal to authority.

E.g.: Psychic ability (to which elaborate excuse are made for failure of the scientific method to detect/prove this), the existence of beings described by a paranoid delusional/schizophrenic, the existence of ghosts.

Anybody who is OK with thinking these things silly/false/wrong, should have no qualms about feeling the same about the existence of God, no?

 

[BradCube]

I acknowledge this. However, as I highlighted in my post, some types of reasoning are absurd yet not refutable.

If the reasoning is absurd as you put it, why then is it not refutable? Possibly the claim is absurd yet not refutable? For example I could claim that my brother flew to Netpune and now lives there in a section that cannot be found but is fully habitable. It would be pretty hard to refute a claim such as that even if it is absurd. It should be easy to refute any reasoning I would give for this however.

Either way though an appeal to authority would do nothing to invalidate my claim. You would need to show reasoning for why the claim is not true. Ie, reasons why a person cannot fly, why they cannot travel through space alone, why Neptune is not habitable. It also may be worth mentioning that diagnoses of medical conditions would probably be worth considering - although we must be careful also not to fall into the genetic fallacy.

To these claims, the highest probability of correct resolution seems to be found via methods along the lines of appeal to authority.

I disagree unless those authorities can provide at least some explanation for their beliefs. Even if it does suggest a probability of accuracy, it still has no bearing upon it's actual validity.

E.g.: Psychic ability (to which elaborate excuse are made for failure of the scientific method to detect/prove this), the existence of beings described by a paranoid delusional/schizophrenic, the existence of ghosts.

Anybody who is OK with thinking these things silly/false/wrong, should have no qualms about feeling the same about the existence of God, no?

That is a pretty big jump from ghosts to God. I would argue that usually we can find find answer for the reasons people believe in ghosts. God however provides an answer to questions it seems we will never be able to answer on our own. The implications of the existence or non-existence of God are far more important than those of ghosts and thus, making sure we have good reason to believe in either claim is critically important.

 

[Slidey]

That is a pretty big jump from ghosts to God.

Oh? Why?

I would argue that usually we can find find answer for the reasons people believe in ghosts.

And plenty of people have found similar reasons for why people believe in God.

God however provides an answer to questions it seems we will never be able to answer on our own.

Such as?

But does that validate belief in God? Or does it confirm the human need for security and comfort?

The implications of the existence or non-existence of God are far more important than those of ghosts and thus, making sure we have good reason to believe in either claim is critically important.

That doesn't answer why you think God exists but not pixies that secretly move objects around the house to confuse us.

In what way does your belief in God make more sense than a belief in ghosts?

How do you reconcile your logic for belief in God with your logic for disbelieving in ghosts? (and unicorns and demons and leprechauns and terminators living among us sent from the future) Shouldn't the reasoning be the same in both cases?

 

[xeuyrawp]

Well, Hell, in a modern concept, is entirely an idea from the New Testament.

What...? With regards to Christianity:

Hell as a concept (like every other in the Bible) has changed a lot, certainly, but the modern concept (ie, a bad place) is an extremely old idea which predates the Old Testament.

The root of the Hebrew word (š'l) is extremely old and refers simply to a dark place of despair. In the Septuagint, it's simply called Hades and was associated with that place of Classical mythology. Then in the NT, it was called gehenna, and thought to be a place of continual torment.

Yes, the concept basically changed to a place of transition and despair > a place of eternal punishment, but this didn't happen from the NT. Rather, the NT reflects the earlier thinking which had changed before it. If you simply look back on the O vs NT, you need to remember that a) both collections of works are from a variety of sources, b) there's a huge time and cultural difference between when the early and late works were written in each collections (hence you can't even really contrast one book with another (let alone the OT and the NT) any more than you could contrast two different societies), and c) both are reflecting current belief systems - they are not themselves the start of any system.

You really can't say that anything is 'from' the NT, because it implies that the work was somehow written outside of its context. Nor can you say that any concept is 'entirely' from the NT; even the synoptic Gospels' narrative of Jesus relies heavily upon the Messiah metamyth from the OT and other apocrypha, Deuterocanonical books, wisdom texts, etc etc etc, and numerous other 'texts' in the broader sense. Ie, nothing 'new' comes from anywhere in the Bible; what we read today as the Bible (whatever form it takes) is a heavily edited multi-faceted text which was moulded to form the contemporary belief systems, thus removing anything radical or fresh.

That being said, I think that most Christians view as hell in the older sense of nothingness, rather than in the 'hellfire' sense. It doesn't make sense to me that if you do bad things in your life, you get sent to hell forever, it seems completely incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. Rather, I think most Christians view hell as simply not heaven.

*shrug*

Edit:

How do you reconcile your logic for belief in God with your logic for disbelieving in ghosts? (and unicorns and demons and leprechauns and terminators living among us sent from the future) Shouldn't the reasoning be the same in both cases?

Reasoning:

1. He sees no reason to believe in ghosts; the presence of ghosts do not explain anything that he has observed,
2. he sees a reason to believe in god; the presence of God explains things that he has observed the same way a scientist may say 'I observe x, but I cannot explain it. There must be a reason for it to happen.'.

Of course, as Bertrand Russell pointed out (I believe Dawkins jabbers on about it as well), if you use the logic in 2., the more he learns about the universe, the less he needs God.

 

[Slidey]

1. He sees no reason to believe in ghosts; the presence of ghosts do not explain anything that he has observed,
2. he sees a reason to believe in god; the presence of God explains things that he has observed the same way a scientist may say 'I observe x, but I cannot explain it. There must be a reason for it to happen.'.

Of course, as Bertrand Russell pointed out (I believe Dawkins jabbers on about it as well), if you use the logic in 2., the more he learns about the universe, the less he needs God.

Should he answer with that line of thinking, my question is:

How do you differentiate between Allah, the Christian God, and the Hindu facets, Budha, etc? What logic do you use to validate one choice whilst simultaneously invalidating the others?

 

[BradCube]

And plenty of people have found similar reasons for why people believe in God.

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant here. I did not mean to say there are reasons people believe. I meant to imply that there are scientific proofs of why those people believe those things. ie. they may have a medical condition which cause them to see hallucination's. I think you are going to have a harder time taking such a high ground as this when talking in relation to a God - surely not everyone that believes in God has a medical condition or problems which cause them all to irrationally have faith?

Such as?

The origins of the universe and the improbability of life's existence on earth.

But does that validate belief in God? Or does it confirm the human need for security and comfort?

No it doesn't validate it at all. My point is that it makes it worth investigation rather than dismissal.

That doesn't answer why you think God exists but not pixies that secretly move objects around the house to confuse us.

Well, this would be based on the things we can infer about the nature of God rather than that of "pixies". Ie, a cause that transcends the natural properties of the universe must exist if the universe has a cause.

If you truly would like to take this argument than it may be worth us looking at the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody of religion and God.

In what way does your belief in God make more sense than a belief in ghosts?

A belief in God makes more sense than ghosts because it is based around an explanation of everything we currently observe in life today. It makes more sense because it answers far more questions than the existence of Ghosts. Now I realize this appears to be a weak response. The arguments and debates surrounding Gods existence also seem (to me at least) to be substantiated with far more reason, logic and evidence than that of ghosts. This question also ties in with my response to your question below.

How do you reconcile your logic for belief in God with your logic for disbelieving in ghosts? (and unicorns and demons and leprechauns and terminators living among us sent from the future) Shouldn't the reasoning be the same in both cases?

Agreed, the reasoning should be the same in both cases. However I find there is no convincing reason to pose the possibility of unicorns as I do for a God. That is, there are no questions which demand the answer where a unicorn would be appropriate or fitting.


I'll have to re-read over this in the morning because my brain feels like it's dead at the moment. Apologies if what I have written is incoherent.

 

[xeuyrawp]

How do you differentiate between Allah, the Christian God, and the Hindu facets, Budha, etc? What logic do you use to validate one choice whilst simultaneously invalidating the others?

That's a very good question; if I know I'm theist, what religious faith do I follow? I think there's no answer, other than to separate theism and religion (hah). I suppose each religion professes a different manifestation of theism, so I suppose you try to apply those criteria to the supernatural you've observed?

I do think there are some things to be learnt from most religions, simply because they're a norm-defined social body, not because of their relationship (if any) with god or gods.

In the end, though, I honestly don't think it matters. I don't think you should really engage in any specific spiritual practices; I think praying, not eating pork, going to church because you feel like you 'have to', etc etc is a waste of time, unless you want to do it for non-religious reasons.

I would personally never believe in any god or religious teachings if I felt like it required my participation or even belief. God may or may not exist, but I don't think it should rule your life in any way. If there is a god, it doesn't want you wasting time talking to it, converting people, killing people for it, or even believe in it, otherwise it wouldn't have given us the capacity to do otherwise. That is, unless it's restrained by something higher.

It seems to me that I'd rather go to hell than spend time in heaven with a God which required my prayers.

Edit:

Thus I am quite certain of two things:
1. Religion is a sham; a product of millennia of cultural evolution, diffusion, and change of primitive superstitions and myths which were used to explain the confusing universe. These superstitions are still around today because the universe is really as confusing as ever. We've gone to being confused by thunderstorms (Thor's angry!) to being confused by how even the human brain works. There'll never be an end to the confusion, or, by extension, to the religion.
2. I neither know, care, nor will spend time trying to figure out whether god exists. If a scientist -- natural or social -- figures it out, they can let me know. In the mean time, if I had to make a decision, I'd say there is no god, simply because the belief in it is a product of religion.