Wishing Doesn’t Make It True
The existence of a god would invalidate the most essential laws of science, and no sane person would believe “everything you know is wrong” without reason. And when you failed to show how the laws had been broken, your entire idea would be dismissed as rubbish. If you say you’re breaking the laws of physics, as my daughter say “you’d better be prepared to bring it”
But there is nothing to bring. In all our wealth of knowledge, the amount of evidence for the POSSIBILITY of the creation of matter from nothing is nil. The same goes for evidence of psychic power, ghosts, life after death, or the existence of a soul. None. The only logical solution is that matter and energy are eternal.
To be sure, I wish there were a god. Gods imply order, intent, a great plan, and of course immortality. All nice things! I wish all the bad guys went to hell and the good guys went to heaven, and everyone lived forever. I also wish the World Trade Center stood tall, and that hunger was wiped off the map. I wish all those things, sooooo much.
But wishing it doesn’t make it true.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
We can't fully place our faith in science, because it is continually changing. The theory's and truth's of 100 years ago are not always considered truth 100 years into the future. I think it is questionable to fully rely on the thoughts and beliefs of man for we have not obtained full knowledge and will never obtain full knowledge of all things. There will always be unexplained matters in our existence. It's almost like we are lost on a weird country road, but do not want to stop and ask for directions because we want to do it ourselves. Although we may never find it and it would be a more pleasant experience if we stopped and asked for directions, we want to see it with our own eyes, so we never stop thinking we might be heading in a totally wrong direction.
Of course not. There's no evidence for any kind of entity that somehow stands outside of existence and "creates" it.
One should recognize that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It is. It always was and always will be. Matter changes its form but it does not cease to exist.
The notion of God goes back to pre-historic times when men sought an explanation for the universe and its contents. It was an understandable thing to do. But now thanks to many geniuses---philosophers such as Aristotle and Ayn Rand and scientists such as Galileo and Newton---we've come to understand much about the universe and about the nature of man and how he learns and the legitimate forms of knowledge. There is still much to learn. To learn it, we certainly should put aside ancient myths.
Mysticism always leads to brutality. Faith and force go together. Those not dedicated to reason seek to force others to believe as they do. Religion is an immoral institution and it starts with the notion that some omnipotent, infallible god in on somebody's side and others must be forced to believe it. Consider the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts and today's latest "fad" suicide bombers. All these kill themselves and others in the name of their god.
No, Virginia, there is no God. Human beings are responsible for their actions. Nature is a wonderful benevolent place. But as Lord Bacon said, "To command nature, we must obey it." So one should put all one's intellectual effort into understanding it and leave off with the wishful thinking and fantasies of religions.
If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists.
--Blaise Pascal
and to be honest it seems it would take just as much faith to believe that there is no God, that when we die were done and gone, as it does to believe in one.
The reason why people have always come up with different religions and theories is yes, to search out an explanation of the universe and its contents. But, instead of seeing this as a pathetic foolishness that you seem to, it appears to me that it is the amazing inborn reactions humans have to discover where they have come from, where they go to, and why they are here. Perhaps we feel we have to find answers to these questions because somewhere we know that there's more to this life.
Zebrakin appears to be a believer and that no amount of reasoned argument will change his mind.
However, in the event that I'm wrong and that I can change his mind, I point out that it is a mistake to consider being convinced of something is the same as believing something. The concept conviction is an intellectual conclusion based usually on a lengthy examination of the facts of reality. The concept belief is an abandonment of the intellect and an acceptance of what others have asserted without evidence or proof.
Belief is ultimately based on wishes, and requires self-abnegation. Conviction is based on logic and requires self-assertion.
Zebrakin states that I consider belief "pathetic foolishness." Okay, but not accurate. In this day and age, I consider religious belief to be the most lethal form of brute force that men have invented. It stunts one's consciousness and tears it in two, attributing one's best to the non-existent and requiring one regard oneself as sacrificial fodder for the benefit of others.
It is a boon to man's rational faculty that he can marvel at the beauty of the universe. But that is not "in born." Such an estimate arises from a fundamental regard of nature as benevolent and of man as heroic. That this is true is shown by the fact that many men do not regard the universe with wonder, nor look upon man as basically good. Instead they regard nature as a threat and man as basically evil.
The better philosophers, such as Aristotle and Ayn Rand, have answered the questions you raise. ("to discover where [men] have come from, where they go to, and why they are here.") Many scientists, such as archeologists and physicists, have helped by adding factual details.
I sense in your closing statement a melancholy I should like to tell you is not necessary to feel. You wrote: "Perhaps we feel we have to find answers to these questions because somewhere we know that there's more to this life."
A proper moral code, found in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, shows that one need not wish that life is somehow better beyond the grave where men will find
true happiness. One can find true happiness here on earth while we live. But to do so requires courage to face the reality that you have far greater intellectual strength than your religion tells you, far greater wealth of spirit that your beliefs suggest you possess, and that you are far superior in value to those you are taught to sacrifice yourself for.
You can find happiness now by rejecting the moral code of your religion and discovering the rational moral code of Objectivism, which briefly put says your life belongs to you and the good is to live it rationally.
May I suggest you read Ayn Rand's novels?---Especially Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. In addition to being wonderfully original stories, they will help you to re-discover what your religion may have caused you to loose.
You are obviously much more intellectually minded than I am at this point, but I relate that to years of life rather than my beliefs or views on religion and life.
You say that there is a different in belief and conviction. Isn't it in true conviction that we find belief in something? Right now I sit in a chair, convinced it will hold me up. I've never studied a chair I don't know exactly why or how long chairs will hold people up, but I believe that I am safe. So I think that conviction and belief are closer and strongly related than you might suppose. If you go bungee jumping how do you know the cable will hold you up? They have broken before... Is this conviction? Or belief? Using what you stated as belief being a wish and conviction being logic, I would have to say that thinking it to be held would be both. You wish it to hold but you also know it will.
"[Religion] stunts one's consciousness and tears it in two, attributing one's best to the non-existent and requiring one regard oneself as sacrificial fodder for the benefit of others." I must say, personally, that I do not regard myself as sacrificial fodder, but perhaps, you have the crusades or suicide bombers in mind? Both of these I don't defend as I can't possibly say they were ever justified in any ways.
You speak about true happiness. "One can find true happiness here on earth while we live." What would you define as true happiness? Having lots of money? A pleasant relationship with your spouse? Having as your profession something you had always wanted to do, and that you love? I obviously don't have the answer, but perhaps you have some ideas? You must have been thinking of some things when you wrote it.
Like I said, I don't have the answers (that's why I feel we have to look outside ourselves for them) but I think that as long as we strive to have true happiness for ourselves we shall never, ever be happy.
"You can find happiness now by rejecting the moral code of your religion and discovering the rational moral code of Objectivism, which briefly put says your life belongs to you and the good is to live it rationally." Ah, so is this true happiness? You say to reject the moral code. For my religion (Christianity) that would mean rejecting love, obedience to authority, unselfishness, etc. Good things in my opinion, and yours too I would think. So forgive me if I cannot fully grasp your meaning.
While were recommending books I would like to recommend Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. I found it rather intellectually stimulating and think you might too. If you do end up reading it, I hope you would with an open mind as I will when I read the books you suggested.
You asked a couple of good questions. Let's see if I can give you some good answers.
First, regarding conviction and belief. You wrote: "Right now I sit in a chair, convinced it will hold me up. I've never studied a chair I don't know exactly why or how long chairs will hold people up, but I believe that I am safe. So I think that conviction and belief are closer and strongly related than you might suppose."
It's quite okay to say that you "believe" a chair will hold you up. Most of our convictions are subconscious evaluations formed many years ago and they've become automatized. We've had countless experiences since childhood that when we can sit in a chair it will hold us up. From those experiences we've formed evaluations which in time have become firm convictions. It's okay to use the term "believe" in this manner. It's not precise, but most people know what you mean. In everyday talk, we often use the two concepts interchangeably. However, in serious discussions I like to be more precise simply because to do so usually results in easier and quicker mutual understanding.
But the two concepts are very different, for the reason I previously stated. In a serious discussion we make ourselves almost instantly understandable by your saying, for example, you believe in God and for me to say I am convinced God does not exist. The bonus in this is that we both see we have different viewpoints---or as is said these days, "we know where the other is coming from." Were each of us to use the same term, confusion would immediately result. And it would take us several hours, maybe days, to sort out what each mean.
Your reference to bungee jumping is pretty much the same idea but using a different example. Many people go through their entire lives wishing things were so, or believing something is safe. That does not alter the nature of the intellectual methodology of belief and its distinct difference from conviction.
The other question you asked was: "What would you define as true happiness?" Novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand wrote: "Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values." This must be understood in the context of her philosophy, Objectivism. Miss Rand is referring to values that are in accordance with man's rational nature, fundamental values such as reason, purpose and self-esteem from which other values such as the choice of one's career, the type of art one enjoys, the qualities of character one esteems in others, and so forth. She is NOT referring to those who claim a "value" in taking mind-destroying drugs, or sexual promiscuity or hedonism.
If one holds values in accordance with man's rational nature and seeks to achieve them, when one does so, one certainly experiences a state of happiness. For example, say you want very much to find a life-partner. You think about what you want in a partner. You don't sit at home and mope. You go out and look around and meet different people and find what you want or something very close to it and you become friends with that person. Surely you've achieved a value. And surely that achievement will make you happy.
I mentioned that achieving happiness begins with rejecting a religious moral code. You wrote: "For my religion (Christianity) that would mean rejecting love, obedience to authority, unselfishness, etc. Good things in my opinion, and yours too I would think."
I think love is very good. I also think that love is not possible for those who believe in God. I think that those who value love as you say you do, do so on my code of values, not on the Christian code of values. I think "obedience to authority and unselfishness" are very bad things. I think both are mind-destroying and spiritual suicide.
Many Americans have a mixed set of values. One set of values is based on a rational code of morality that they've never discovered. Another set of their values are based on Christianity, which continuously erodes their rational code of morality. Ayn Rand has identified the rational code of morality. It is a code of morality based on man's nature as a basically good and valuable entity, with a rational faculty that can be his most glorious asset, if he chooses to use it.
I cannot promise you to read Mere Christianity. I've read many books on Christianity and the other religions of the world.
I'm delighted to hear that you will read Ayn Rand's novels, particularly Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
I cannot prove conclusively that God exists in a laboratory. However, the key to the Super Natural is "Faith". However, there is some evidence. I can pass on to you that the Bible has survived for centuries and the most widely read text. The world uses the current Calendar based on Christ's death (A.D. - After Death). We refer to B.C.(Before Christ), as well. Now why must it be Faith in order to "see" proof? When Christ walked the Earth he performed various miracles and people saw and people hated him. There were those, I'm sure that thought it was fake. I have experienced many things that I knew God sent to me. God does most of His works through people and events for His Children. Just as God feeds the animals He takes care of His own that "believe" in Him. God does not want robots to love Him and God gave man the ability to chose, either good or bad. So you wonder why there is so much despair, hate, murder and abuse in the world. Why? because God gave man a choice. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their crimes against each other. We as Humans are so quick to dismiss God because we think "I can't be happy". Then there are those that just don't believe at all. I also find people can get angry if someone talks about God or Jesus. It is if they are about to catch on fire or something. I think they believe that they cannot be happy. Actually it is evil which whispers in their ear. Even I from time to time am tempted. I leave with you this poem as given to me from God. It had taken me a week to write it. I wrote the first half and when I tried to finish I felt very ill. But nonetheless I did finish. I am merely the writer and not the Author.
BLIND
Oh the pursuits of the flesh
This shell that covers self
The fix of desire until the next crave
So shallow this fix, never to last
Brief satisfaction; my cup now empty
This flesh aches between each thirst
Day after day the endless search; cup in hand
What elixir will fill this cup and empty not
The sweet savor that quenches my desire
Light begins to dim on this ragged shell
This flesh shriveled from the tick of time
Cup after cup filled up; folly for the fool
The spirit lay bleached to bone white
Picked clean from neglect
Left to rot in the hot desert wind of life
The spirit left alone, forgotten and unwanted
Never watered or nurtured; void of light
Cast to the shadows to wither on the vine
Oh what a wasteland that I made of this spirit
For it is I, the spirit, that was starved until death
A lifetime to quicken my spirit has cost me the prize
We could blog here all night and all day for years on end and it comes down to this simple conclusion:
Atheists believe God does not exist, they are putting their money down on no eternal life. Their payoff they believe is humans living in reality while alive for their short time here on Earth. Here is their problem, what if God does exist? They have basically doomed themselves, its their payoff they have been afforded all the information of Christ and have decided that it is mere folly.
Christians on the other hand have taken the 50/50 bet. If God doesn't exist they have lived in a fairy tale land for the last 25-50 to 75 years. But given their religions good precepts they have at the least lived a decent and kind life. But then comes the payoff, He does exist, they reap the rewards of their faith and achieve eternal life.
I'll take the later. There are no lasting payoffs for Atheism. I'd rather not pay a huge price for the honor of science and theories. What if the atheists theories are nothing really more then explaining God? Isn't that what the weatherman on TV does every night. Everything explained by Scientists could be nothing more then a play-by-play of God. Simply put scientists are nothing more then the Vin Scully's of their field
Really, the wager isn't a 50/50 bet. What if you pick the wrong god, and the true god is a jealous spiteful one, and you have to face Zeus, for example, in the afterlife? Might you be better off not believing in any god, rather than insulting god by believing in someone else? It would be good if you could actually prove your god's existence, instead of relying on blind faith. Or better still, if he could give a sign that no one would be able to dismiss.
The very exsistence of matter invalidates the law of physics. There should be nothing because matter cannot be made or destroyed, only changed if I am to understand your argument correctly. It's amazing how well the Bible is formed, there are no incostencies in it. You just displayed why man made religion is easy to spot, because it will have glaring incosistancies in it.
Your argument fails to disprove at all the existence of a God who rules BY those laws. Also- whereas science itself claims itself incomplete, you can never absolutely claim that all laws are ever violated, because many laws lay undiscovered. Also, you fail claim to the petitio principi fallacy. You are only disproving a God that breaks natural laws, not the God that created natural laws, or the God that rules by them. Also- your definition inherently contradicts this argument, because you allow for a God that has been "created," therefore allowing for a God that did not creat the matter of the universe. You're basically falling prey to giant straw-man fallacy. You build a God, and then disprove that God. If I defined atheism as "belief that nothing exists outside of the self," then, depending on your metaphysics, I could easily disprove that. But I do not. As long as the theist must disprove the atheist's definition of atheism, so also must the atheist disprove the theist's God.
jdefriez, yes indeed, science is provisional- our best knowledge now, ever subject to revision. Theists cannot say that God violates those laws, as you say, we discover more. You use the petitio to assume that there is this God who made those laws! We naturalists ever disprove God but the burden is upon theists to reveal Him. We do have naturalist arguments against Him - the problem of Heaven, the hiddennes problem, the atelic challenge, the presumption of naturalism and the ignostic-Ockham.
The law of the conservation of mass-energy, as I show elsewhere in these pages, reflects eternal Existence in the form of quantum fluctuations, whence matter-energy as David Mills exhibits in 'Atheist Universe."
William Sahakian would claim that we atheists commit the fallacy of multiple questions in askig : what caused this First Cause and what designed the Designer but rather it theists who beg the question and special plead to exempt Him from those two questions!That bane!
Just how do you explain faith to the faithless. Our faith in our states that faith is not brought on to another by us. As Jesus stated, "The Father calls them on to me". Mans faith in himself blinds him to faith in God. Outside of Christianity all other faiths are forms of humanism, just as science is. Are evening and morning news cycles are filled with endless news stories of scientists have done this or that study, or experts suggest this or that. Only later to conclude the opposite may be true. This is the problem with modern day politics, liberalism has basically come to the conclusion of "This is ok for this moment". With God nothing changes.
Who says the Creator of all those laws is bound by them?
"The existence of a god would invalidate the most essential laws of science..."
An interesting argument indeed. Why does science have laws? Why do we accept that there is a natural order (design?). Why is it an accepted proposition that those laws can be depended upon?
If I were to believe in a designer, I would expect a design. I would expect that the universe he created would have evidence of his design. If I were to take your side of the argument I would wonder why any laws or formulas would exist at all? You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth- arguing from the perspective of a highly ordered universe out of the one side, and denying the source of that order out of the other.
If the universe has laws as you say, then you must be intellectually honest enough to say that those laws had to come from somewhere.