Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

It most assuredly is no action. Not just in my universe, but in the reality of "our universe".
A mental process is not an action, other than, in just the mental sense.
Exercising a decision or a choice does not always dictate an action.
This case is a good example.

Except that the decision not to act is still a decision and an action.

Quite the opposite.
His inaction resulted in "no consequence".
The only way to engage a consequence, was to take action on the bet
Otherwise there is no consequence.
His life savings is intact, just as it was prior to the proposition.

The consequence being to retain the status quo.

As you can see, not acting has a consequence too. Not acting in the runaway trolley thought problem results in five innocent people dying - a pretty major consequence, but one for which you aren't responsible.

You've already gone askew.
The bet is on and it is uncancelable.
You don't get a choice on that.
Your only choices are to take action to avoid the negative consequence, or disregaurd the warning and take your chances, so to speak.
One thing is absolutely assured. You will physically die one day, and the ensuing consequences, whatever they are, will take effect.

Then let's make the analogy more accurate.

The bet for your life savings is on an uncancellable - you don't get a choice on that. Your only choices are to take action to avoid the negative consequence of losing your life savings or disregard the warning and take your chances, so to speak.
One thing is absolutely assured. The coin will land one day and the ensuing consequences, whatever they are, will take effect.

Heads or tails?

The only consistency by TM is not taking action.
Only in this case, the risk is with the inaction, not the action.

Remember, the stakes are your life savings and the results are double or nothing. The analogy is that the stakes are your mortal life and the results are double (being saved) or nothing.

That is all up to the individual.
However, considering the implications of the Bible, you are clearly covered.

Hurrah! A questionably-translated, questionably-anthologised tome is right when it claims to predict the result of the coin toss and all the other similar tomes that claim the same don't, because it does! Why didn't you say so from the start?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Actually, no, we didn't. You only mentioned the term 'operative actions' for the first time a few days ago, and you haven't explained or clearly defined what you mean by this phrase anywhere, hence why I am asking for clarification. I think I know what you mean, but you haven't actually specified what 'operative actions' means.

It actually goes back much further, and I listed several examples and also touched on involuntary physilogical functions.
I would try to go back and find it, but I can't find the thread search option either.

I'm saying that I do not apply belief because I know that my chances of success and failure are exactly the same. My decision to not place a bet is not guided by belief but by the knowledge that I'm as likely to lose as I am to win. Winning would be great, but I cannot entertain any possibility of losing, therefore the only sensible course of action is to not place a bet.

I do not have to believe that the two possible outcomes (heads or tails) are equally likely - they are equally likely. Belief is not required in order to make a decision here. A rudimentary knowledge of probability is all that is required to guide my actions.

Is it?
First off, you are placing trust or confidence in the knowledge.
Or otherwise known as "belief" in the knowledge.
You seem intent on skipping that relevant, pertinent and necessary factor.

That being the case, you know from the odds of the only two outcomes, you may win, or you may lose.
Generally its a 50/50 chance of either.
Your chances of winning are as good as losing.
So there is actually nothing here, to deter you from taking the bet from a knowledge standpoint.

Ah, but whats the kicker for the decision?
In the event you lose, you believe it too unbearable to suffer the loss.
So thats the real decision maker.

So your position is one of 'no belief' too.

Hardly.

No.

Well, as with the coin toss, since there is no way to determine the outcome, how can you be so sure?

Only thanks to your careless rewording of what I said, which changes the meaning of it completely.

Rather, I was just seeking to inject some possible reality there.

Wow. It's been years since I really participated in this thread and you are still flogging this same line. You are positively Terminator-like in your dogged and unyielding insistence on projecting your beliefs onto the rest of the world.

Thats really not the case. In fact we have scarcely touched on my beliefs.
We are however, probing the depths of beliefs, and how they are defined individually and applied.
Needless to say, that has consumed and still is consuming quite a few pages here.
BTW, while you have singled me out for, "Terminator-like in your dogged and unyielding insistence" obviously I'm not alone here in that respect.

It's not even that you're necessarily trying to convert us, or evangelize your particular religion. It's that you insist on interpreting everything everybody says in light of something non-scientific, non-objective that you happen to believe, and you are completely, utterly, earth-shakingly unable or unwilling to understand that your belief simply doesn't apply to those who don't share it.

Well I can see how you could interpret it that way.
But again the current discussion is more about trying to establish a reality basis for using "belief", since the reality of it is different from person to person.
Not about, at least at this point, difference of belief.

We're not discussing the laws of physics here. Gravity affects everyone equally, whether or not they even notice it, understand it in any form, or just think that the Earth sucks. But there is just no way you can equate your belief in your God to that kind of fundamental force of nature.

It may affect *you* that way, because you have chosen to believe it does, but you MUST understand that it is JUST - NOT - GOING to affect others that way, no matter how often or how stridently you insist it does.

And it may affect me that way because it actually has that affect.

"The bet is on. You have no choice in that." <~~~~~ That is your fundamental mistake and the underlying root of all this endless debate. You can insist that I have no choice for all of your eternity. That still doesn't mean it's true.

Likewise it doesn't mean its false as well.

Just like a hundred million people testifying that they believe God has directly affected their lives doesn't mean He actually has.

Doesn't mean he actually hasn't either.

All further discussion will be useless until you accept that other people can simply not accept your assertions, without incurring any logical fallacies in their own thinking.

Future outcomes are unknown.
So you never know.

 

[[joel]]

I beleive in God...but also beleive in Darwin...

 

[Furinkazen]

I beleive in God...but also beleive in Darwin...

How does that work? Intrigued how.

 

[Imari]

I love how many of SCJs arguments boil down to "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right".

 

[LeMansAid]

How does that work? Intrigued how.

I'm surprised at how alien it seems to be for people to think of God and religion as not inextricably linked. That said, I even remember an interview with Catholic Cardinal George Pell, where he stated an acceptance of human evolution of the Darwin-type mould. And doing a quick search it seems that it is quite widely accepted in Catholicism.

Is there something in non-believers in general that makes them want to view all believers as unbending and fundamentalist? It's almost as if the non-belief isn't just non-belief in and of itself, but non-belief in the context of the distance they might be wanting to keep between the believer and themselves. To me, it introduces the possibility of the equal opposite of an emotional component.

"I want to believe"/"I want to not believe"

 

[orimarc]

How does that work? Intrigued how.

God made the first unicellular being, and evolution took care of the rest?

 

[[joel]]

God made the first unicellular being, and evolution took care of the rest?

it's something like that

 

[huskeR32]

Is it?
First off, you are placing trust or confidence in the knowledge.
Or otherwise known as "belief" in the knowledge.
You seem intent on skipping that relevant, pertinent and necessary factor.

Call it "belief," call it "trust," call it whatever you want to... It's still completely unnecessary. Knowledge that is gained through, and can be verified by, objective means (mathematics, scientific observation and experimentation, etc.) only requires one to be aware of it.

That being the case, you know from the odds of the only two outcomes, you may win, or you may lose.

Exactly. No belief or trust required.

Generally its a 50/50 chance of either.

It's exactly 50/50. Normally, I wouldn't feel compelled to call out the careless use of the word "generally" here, but considering your penchant for redefining words whenever you please, I'm erring on the side of caution.

Your chances of winning are as good as losing.
So there is actually nothing here, to deter you from taking the bet from a knowledge standpoint.

This makes no sense at all. If he knows that there isn't a position to take that put the odds in his favor, he has every reason to not take the bet.

Well I can see how you could interpret it that way.
But again the current discussion is more about trying to establish a reality basis for using "belief", since the reality of it is different from person to person.
Not about, at least at this point, difference of belief.

To the contrary, all but one of us in this thread is quite clear on the reality of how belief works.

-------------------------------------------------------------

How does that work? Intrigued how.

I'm surprised at how alien it seems to be for people to think of God and religion as not inextricably linked. That said, I even remember an interview with Catholic Cardinal George Pell, where he stated an acceptance of human evolution of the Darwin-type mould. And doing a quick search it seems that it is quite widely accepted in Catholicism.

Is there something in non-believers in general that makes them want to view all believers as unbending and fundamentalist? It's almost as if the non-belief isn't just non-belief in and of itself, but non-belief in the context of the distance they might be wanting to keep between the believer and themselves. To me, it introduces the possibility of the equal opposite of an emotional component.

"I want to believe"/"I want to not believe"

Here's the thing - the vast majority of theists base their beliefs in scripture. Those various scriptures explain in one way or another how we all got here, and I'm not aware of any that include evolution in those explanations.

So, when someone says they believe in god, but also accept evolution as true, it's perfectly legitimate to wonder how they reconcile that intellectual conflict.

I don't buy your assertion at all that atheists want believers to be fundamentalists. It's just a glaring contradiction that many of us are truly puzzled about. If a theist is willing to denounce part of their belief system (in this case, creation) when faced with a more objectively substantiated alternative (evolution), then one wonders why they don't stay on the rational thought train all the way to the end, and throw all the nonsense out the window.

 

[Imari]

I don't buy your assertion at all that atheists want believers to be fundamentalists. It's just a glaring contradiction that many of us are truly puzzled about. If a theist is willing to denounce part of their belief system (in this case, creation) when faced with a more objectively substantiated alternative (evolution), then one wonders why they don't stay on the rational thought train all the way to the end, and throw all the nonsense out the window.

I've met several extremely competent scientists who are also practising Christians. They're well aware of the contradictions involved with scripture, and generally take the view that if human knowledge is available then it's best to use that. For anything else, nobody knows and it hardly matters anyway, so they believe what they choose to using their best interpretation of their religion.

It's actually quite a refreshing viewpoint. They're aware that what they believe isn't particularly rational, but lots of stuff in our lives isn't rational. And there's lots of stuff in life that isn't well defined or explained and is open to people to interpret however they like.

If it makes them happy and doesn't adversely affect others, I say all the best. It's very hard to object to someone who says "I know that there's no particular reason to believe in God, but I do so because it makes me happy and I feel like I lead a better life".

This applies to all religions. They're not that common, but occasionally you meet people who are aware that their beliefs are a choice and are OK with that.

 

[dxld]

W

What about the parts where they are in direct conflict with each other? What about, ohhhhh, half of Leviticus?

Which part exactly?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Except that the decision not to act is still a decision and an action.The consequence being to retain the status quo.

In reality, his inaction retained the status quo.

As you can see, not acting has a consequence too. Not acting in the runaway trolley thought problem results in five innocent people dying - a pretty major consequence, but one for which you aren't responsible.Then let's make the analogy more accurate..

Obviously, there are situations where inaction can have consequences.
TM's example just isn't one of them.

The bet for your life savings is on an uncancellable - you don't get a choice on that. Your only choices are to take action to avoid the negative consequence of losing your life savings or disregard the warning and take your chances, so to speak.
One thing is absolutely assured. The coin will land one day and the ensuing consequences, whatever they are, will take effect.

Heads or tails?Remember, the stakes are your life savings and the results are double or nothing. The analogy is that the stakes are your mortal life and the results are double (being saved) or nothing.Hurrah! A questionably-translated, questionably-anthologised tome is right when it claims to predict the result of the coin toss and all the other similar tomes that claim the same don't, because it does! Why didn't you say so from the start?

Basically, yes
BTW, it is not your mortal life at stake, we've already lost that toss, so to speak.
Its your after mortal life, at stake.

It all hinges on whether that one particular, tome as you call it, is true or false.

 

[Touring Mars]

First off, you are placing trust or confidence in the knowledge.
Or otherwise known as "belief" in the knowledge.
You seem intent on skipping that relevant, pertinent and necessary factor

Oh, come on Now you are just being silly.

Belief and knowledge are completely different things. Knowledge is the understanding of facts. Belief is the personal opinion that something is true, whether or not it is a fact. "Belief in the knowledge" is just a belief.

The fact is a coin toss can only result in two outcomes - heads or tails.

You cannot know that coins always land on heads - the fact is they don't - but you can believe anything you want.

That being the case, you know from the odds of the only two outcomes, you may win, or you may lose.
Generally its a 50/50 chance of either.
Your chances of winning are as good as losing.
So there is actually nothing here, to deter you from taking the bet from a knowledge standpoint.

Absolutely wrong. Knowing you can lose is an obvious deterrent, and it is infinitely more sensible than believing you can't lose. Furthermore, you cannot "know" that it is not possible to lose, but you can "believe" that if you want. Good luck with that. Remind me never to go to Vegas with you.

Ah, but whats the kicker for the decision?
In the event you lose, you believe it too unbearable to suffer the loss.
So thats the real decision maker.

The value of what is being gambled might influence one's decision whether to bet or not, but it doesn't alter the fact that knowing you can lose is infinitely more sensible than believing you can't.

 

[Famine]

In reality, his inaction retained the status quo.

His action was to take no action. Inaction is when you don't act, not when you choose not to act.

Obviously, there are situations where inaction can have consequences.
TM's example just isn't one of them.

Except it patently was. Action and consequence, cause and effect.

Action: Do nothing.
Consequence: Keep money.

Basically, yes
BTW, it is not your mortal life at stake, we've already lost that toss, so to speak.
Its your after mortal life, at stake.

I can't gamble my afterlife any more than I can gamble someone else's money - I don't have it. I can only gamble what I have and that's my life savings or my life.

You've gambled your life that one deity exists and all the others don't. You live your life according to that gamble - it affects your actions and your thoughts - and only when the coin is thrown at your death will you find out if you've won and get to carry on... or not.

I've not taken the gamble. I don't live my life according to the gamble - and by not losing I guarantee that this life is all that I have. I will never win an afterlife nor lose one - I keep hold of my stake.

It all hinges on whether that one particular, tome as you call it, is true or false.

Actually, it all hinges on whether one particular version (from many hundreds) of one particular tome (from many thousands), is true or false and recorded correctly and translated correctly and anthologised correctly.

The odds become quite slim when you factor in the overall message having been recorded originally by falliable people, then translated by falliable people, then anthologised by falliable people, then translated again by falliable people (and translated again a couple more times, depending on your language). In fact, in terms of Chinese-Whisper-induced error, it's more likely that the Qu'ran is right. In fact, in those terms, the most likely religious thesis to be correct is Kim il-Sung's Juche idea and general Kimilsungism/Kimjongilism...

 

[homeforsummer]

His action was to take no action. Inaction is when you don't act, not when you choose not to act.

It doesn't at all surprise me that we have confusion between these two terms, since it's almost identical to the difference between atheism and nontheism that took dozens of pages to illustrate...

 

[Duke]

I love how many of SCJs arguments boil down to "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right".

With a side order of "I know you are, but what am I?" thrown in for good measure. So, having said my piece, I'm not going to bother beating my head against this particular amorphous, ever-shifting brick wall.

 

[Brett]

The odds become quite slim when you factor in the overall message having been recorded originally by falliable people, then translated by falliable people, then anthologised by falliable people, then translated again by falliable people (and translated again a couple more times, depending on your language). In fact, in terms of Chinese-Whisper-induced error, it's more likely that the Qu'ran is right. In fact, in those terms, the most likely religious thesis to be correct is Kim il-Sung's Juche idea and general Kimilsungism/Kimjongilism...

You forgot to list the Force.

 

[Pupik]

The Live Long and Prosper Hand gesture that Spock uses is based on a Jewish hand gesture, the Original was with two hands.

Yeah, I've heard that story, as well. So do many - if not all - movies, books, TV shows, cartoons, artwork, sculptures, buildings, and music make use of religious, cultural, and philosophical devices...which makes them a fascinating (well, to me at least) symbolic communication that transcends language.

Still, those devices do not confirm the existence of any supreme diety, only the existence of such places and rituals.

 

[homeforsummer]

You forgot to list the Force.

Believe, I do not.

 

[Brett]

Believe, I do not.

 

[Duke]

W

Which part exactly?

Well, let's see: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 don't even agree on whether God created man first or the animals first. And it goes downhill from there. How about these:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." First Book of John 3:15

What about the part where God commands Abraham to kill Isaac as a sacrifice? Even as a test of faith, that's pretty harsh... and a dirty trick on Abraham, since God himself also said: "Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones."

So in other words, it's OK to sacrifice your own children to God, but not to the competition?

And those are just conflicts within the Old and New Testaments themselves. Once you start comparing Old to New, it gets even worse. If, as you yourself stated:

I believe that there are no better instructions to live by than the Old Testament Jewish Law, and New Testament Christian Law.

...then do you follow all the laws and teachings of Leviticus?

• Do you bring burnt offerings of unblemished male livestock or fowl?
• Do you bring offerings of finest flour with oil and frankincense?
• I can safely assume you will not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, lest the land fall into prostitution and the land become full of depravity. Though I suspect she would think you shouldn't make her a prostitute because, well, she's your daughter.
• Do you execute adulterers? You should.
  
• Do you execute homosexuals (at least homosexual men; God is oddly silent about lesbians)? You should.
• Do you stone anybody who says "God damn it!"? You should.
• Do you have any tattoos? You shouldn't.

And I could go on.

 

[Carbonox]

• Do you bring burnt offerings of unblemished male livestock or fowl?
• Do you bring offerings of finest flour with oil and frankincense?
• I can safely assume you will not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, lest the land fall into prostitution and the land become full of depravity. Though I suspect she would think you shouldn't make her a prostitute because, well, she's your daughter.
• Do you execute adulterers? You should.
  
• Do you execute homosexuals (at least homosexual men; God is oddly silent about lesbians)? You should.
• Do you stone anybody who says "God damn it!"? You should.
• Do you have any tattoos? You shouldn't.

And I could go on.

Don't encourage the "good Jewish/Christian behavior" or he might actually take that up. One can never know...

 

[Liquid]

I would like to reiterate something niky said in this thread many pages back. It immediately soared into my favourite epitaphs and quotations.

"It doesn't matter which god you pray to, the mathematics are still the same."

 

[CTznOfTime]

I would like to reiterate something niky said in this thread many pages back. It immediately soared into my favourite epitaphs and quotations.

"It doesn't matter which god you pray to, the mathematics are still the same."

What happens if one of those Gods is the one who also created Mathematics, among everything else?

Just being the "Devil's" advocate... (no pun intended lol)

 

[Liquid]

Then you clearly haven't understood the quote.

 

[dxld]

First Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict, Animals were created first.

Another point was when God asked Abraham to kill his son Isaac, that was a test for Abraham. God knew that Abraham loved Isaac, but it was all thanks to God he had him. It was simply a test of obedience to God, and Abraham listened. With heavy sorrow Abraham made the motion to Kill Isaac, but God stopped him.

And all those other instructions, they all serve their purpose according to the days before Christ.
Jewish people to this day have issues following all these instructions. Only one man has followed all these instructions to the letter, and that man is Yeshua (Jesus Christ)

In his last days Christ said this

John 13:34

“I give you a new commandment – to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples – if you have love for one another.”

You should know the story, he died on the cross for our sins, Jesus Christ King of the Jews....

The Old Testament laws were fulfilled by Christ and now we have this simple Golden Rule of the New Testament, "Love one another"

So in this way a Jewish Doctor could save a Life on a Sabbath Day, because he works out of Love to heal or save life.

Can a Jewish person eat Bacon? Can a Jewish person get married to a Pork eating Filipino?

Out of Love yes they can.

In racing there are many guidelines to follow, but not all those guidelines can be followed. But there are unspoken rules that many racers live by. There is that area where winning and death become an issue, and Love for another racer becomes the better choice above winning.

 

[huskeR32]

[Please delete]

 

[DQuaN]

I don't think it's worth responding to him. He just seems to be trolling the thread.

 

[LeMansAid]

I don't think it's worth responding to him. He just seems to be trolling the thread.

I'm perfectly happy to have dxld around. We can talk about one minor detail for pages on end with SCJ, or a thousand things within one sentence with dxld. Variety, spice.... you know.

Here's the thing - the vast majority of theists base their beliefs in scripture. Those various scriptures explain in one way or another how we all got here, and I'm not aware of any that include evolution in those explanations.

So, when someone says they believe in god, but also accept evolution as true, it's perfectly legitimate to wonder how they reconcile that intellectual conflict.

I don't buy your assertion at all that atheists want believers to be fundamentalists. It's just a glaring contradiction that many of us are truly puzzled about. If a theist is willing to denounce part of their belief system (in this case, creation) when faced with a more objectively substantiated alternative (evolution), then one wonders why they don't stay on the rational thought train all the way to the end, and throw all the nonsense out the window.

More rigidity and narrow one-way thinking. A theist by default does not have a belief system. You're looking at believers as people who only approach the concept of God through religion. The opposite direction reveals people that first believe in God, god(s), or a higher power of some kind, and may or may not go on to adopt the principals of (or indeed even go on to form) a particular religion. We've all trudged through this debate about atheism and belief/lack of belief, but it looks like you're falling into the equal opposite trap. You seem to to be ascribing a specific to a variable term. "I believe in God" says only one thing, just as "I am an atheist" says only one thing. To fill in the massive gaps for someone else welcomes you to SCJ world.

The concepts of God and evolution are vastly different in the ways they can and will be interrogated within an individual. If it is possible for the spiritual and paranormal to come under scientific scrutiny, that has not yet happened. Whereas obviously evolution is all about scientific scrutiny. To suggest that they are on the same "thought train" is to be flippantly and delusionally short-sighted. There's a glaring example of how different these types of concepts are: police forensic method, and police paranormal method investigations. Obviously evolution is the partner of forensics, and a belief in God/etc., the partner of the paranormal work. Forensics works, and we can see exactly why and how it works, but if it is true that police use psychics in investigations, the only justification can be that in practice, it gets results. Police departments tend to be coy about whether or not they use psychics, but the principal applies regardless. They are not on the same thought train.

 

[Imari]

Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict, Animals were created first.

Another point was when God asked Abraham to kill his son Isaac, that was a test for Abraham. God knew that Abraham loved Isaac, but it was all thanks to God he had him. It was simply a test of obedience to God, and Abraham listened. With heavy sorrow Abraham made the motion to Kill Isaac, but God stopped him.

And all those other instructions, they all serve their purpose according to the days before Christ.
Jewish people to this day have issues following all these instructions. Only one man has followed all these instructions to the letter, and that man is Yeshua (Jesus Christ)

In his last days Christ said this

John 13:34

“I give you a new commandment – to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples – if you have love for one another.”

You should know the story, he died on the cross for our sins, Jesus Christ King of the Jews....

The Old Testament laws were fulfilled by Christ and now we have this simple Golden Rule of the New Testament, "Love one another"

So in this way a Jewish Doctor could save a Life on a Sabbath Day, because he works out of Love to heal or save life.

Can a Jewish person eat Bacon? Can a Jewish person get married to a Pork eating Filipino?

Out of Love yes they can.

In racing there are many guidelines to follow, but not all those guidelines can be followed. But there are unspoken rules that many racers live by. There is that area where winning and death become an issue, and Love for another racer becomes the better choice above winning.

So you found one line that you take to mean you can ignore ALL the other rules if you feel like it.

Seems a lot like having your cake and eating it too. if you think they're good rules, you should probably at least make an effort to follow them as much as possible.