Question for everyone: "IF" God exists, why did he create us?

[Thinking Skins]

Yeah - a 'god' who obeys the laws of physics is just an extremely advanced species.

But does that make him not a god? In many respects a god is just something that we assume has a lot of power/aurora/hype. But Nino Brown still had to play by some rules. Same goes for Michael Corleone. If God has to live by rules (even if they're rules (s)he created), I don't think it limits his power. I think part of it goes into this "all knowing" property that is assumed about the Judeo-Christian God. Maybe that just means that (s)he knows all the laws of physics of this universe and is able to utilize them to make things happen. But to us, (s)he'd still be a god because (s)he has this power that we don't have.

I mean, supposing that tomorrow we found a way to create a new universe. All we'd be doing is (supposing God exists) repeating (and scientifically explaining) what God did. Like, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the creation of worm holes was possible, or that (as String Theory claims) these alternate universes exist and the conception that every time we make a decision we add another universe into existence. It wouldn't surprise me that to find out that time was nothing but our movement through a bunch of still universes, which would (or could) explain things like time travel and the concept of God being on a different time scale.

[alexey]

funny thing about that quote is that scientists themselves debate about what counts as "evidence". Just listen to an argument between a quantum physicist and a string theorist! Or somebody who studies fundamental probability vs somebody who studies Bayesian probability.

I thought that evidence is observations, results of experiments, etc, and debates are about interpreting it.

[Corcaigh]

But does that make him not a god?

No. No matter how powerful any technology that can be created that obeys the laws of physics, it is not supernatural.

Religious folks aren't talking about an incredibly advanced alien species that can build universes, when they consider their god.

While you may appear immensely powerful to a sentient ****roach, that doesn't make you a god.

[Destructis]

You guys do realize that there is no winner or loser in this debate. No one here is going to be able to convince anyone to change thier beliefs based on not being able to prove anything one way or another.

Religion is called faith for a reason.

[alexey]

Hey, why is it immoral to kill somebody?

What value does human life have over its component parts?

Want me to ask some more questions you can't prove answers too?

**EDIT**

To require an unachievable level of proof for anything is a sure fire way to argue agaisnt any position/action.

Though, I'm not sure of the value of such an argument or the logical abilities of one that would put forward such an argument.

Do not assume that every combination of words followed by "?" constitutes a meaningful question. Many deep theistic questions are actually meaningless to an atheist.

Morality is about human values. Human values can be studied.

Please read up on secular morality and come back if you have any meaningful questions. You keep bringing up the issue of morality as if it somehow makes it reasonable for you to believe in an unprovable, unfalsifiable theory for which you cannot produce any evidence.

[alexey]

You guys do realize that there is no winner or loser in this debate. No one here is going to be able to convince anyone to change thier beliefs based on not being able to prove anything one way or another.

Religion is called faith for a reason.

I think that people generally consider it important to have good reasons for beliefs. Faith without a good reason is called gullibility.

This is why I think it is important to discuss those reasons and see if they stand up to scrutiny. Nobody is expecting people to change their minds overnight.

[Destructis]

I think that people generally consider it important to have good reasons for beliefs. Faith without a good reason is called gullibility.

This is why I think it is important to discuss those reasons and see if they stand up to scrutiny. Nobody is expecting people to change their minds overnight.

Faith is just believing in something. Either you do or you don't. Personally, I think when we die, it's done..over...kaput. I believe we are a happy accident and there is no master plan.

[alexey]

Faith is just believing in something. Either you do or you don't. Personally, I think when we die, it's done..over...kaput. I believe we are a happy accident and there is no master plan.

I understand. I'm just saying that people need reasons. They don't just believe things.

People who go around proselytizing, do they just say hey its faith, just believe me? No. They try to convince people by providing evidence and reasons. And while this evidence may not be convincing to educated people in the developed world, it is quite effective in other places, especially if accompanied by food.

[PeterMP]

Yeah ... but aren't you working in something related to biology or chemistry?

I was talking about hard science, such as physics.

I did want to come back and make my point a little more concretely.

The NAS is seriously under represented by women, and even under represented when you account for PhDs in the STEM sciences.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/women-in-science/national-academy-of-sciences-picks-few-women-19909665

I don't think most people would take that as good evidence that women are lacking in terms "reflective thinking and critical analysis" or even lacking in scientific ability.

It is pretty well generally accepted that it is a combination of societal bias and self-selection, related to choices like the priority of family.

Yet you essentially tried to use the same data to make the same point w/ respect to religion.

People that try to use that data to make that point about women are likely incorrect, and I think it is highly likely your point suffers from the same issues.

---------- Post added August-16th-2012 at 09:09 PM ----------

Do not assume that every combination of words followed by "?" constitutes a meaningful question. Many deep theistic questions are actually meaningless to an atheist.

Morality is about human values. Human values can be studied.

Please read up on secular morality and come back if you have any meaningful questions. You keep bringing up the issue of morality as if it somehow makes it reasonable for you to believe in an unprovable, unfalsifiable theory for which you cannot produce any evidence.

I have read up on secular morality and have the two questions I have asked.

And that you keep not answering.

The difference between us is that I understand what things that I believe in that don't have "good" evidence to support, and you don't.

---------- Post added August-16th-2012 at 09:21 PM ----------

Peter, I'm noting that I didn't assert any kind of complete equivalency among the example organizations (which would be silly, and I certainly don't have any history of being that kind of silly). I did specifically note community and participation as key dynamics, and in appropriate context. In fact, I even specifically noted certain characteristics likely found in religious groups more than the others that can have a bearing on benefits.

Yes, I saw what you did w/ your post, and was not trying to suggest that you held the opinions that I said I thought would be pre-mature and naive.

Just that if somebody did hold them, that was my opinino.

Realistically, I was going to allow alexey's drivel to pass by, but then I saw your post. From my perspective your post inferred (or simply I inferred from your post) that you knew of some studies that seriously looked at active spirituality vs. non-active, but still spiritual people.

And thought I'd try and ask for some real information as I'm not aware of any work in that direction and thought I might learn something.

While making that post, I thought I might as well take the time to make some general comments more related to alexey's post to explicitally state some things as IMO alexey's general style includes suggesting that societies are REALLY rooted in "reliable knowledge" are superior (as if that's even possible) to those that are not (though sometimes that suggestion is more implicit than explicit).

And sometimes it is useful to explicitally point out what is in fact "reliable knowledge".

And the idea that the benefits of attending Church are ONLY the result of community based affects is not reliable knowledge.

[alexey]

I have read up on secular morality and have the two questions I have asked.

And that you keep not answering.

The difference between us is that I understand what things that I believe in that don't have "good" evidence to support, and you don't.

You are claiming that I do not have good evidence to say that humans value not getting murdered.

This is getting silly.

[PeterMP]

You are claiming that I do not have good evidence to say that humans value not getting murdered.

This is getting silly.

And that's not what I asked.

Some simple comparisions will make the point:

I'd value getting paid $1,000,000/year to do what I do what I want, and I think most other people would to.

Is it immoral for our work places to not pay us $1,000,000.

Ants don't like to be killed either.

Should people stop putting out ant traps?

Just because some entity likes or doesn't like something doesn't really mean that it has value or should or should not be immoral.

Most kids don't like bed times.

Should we eliminate them?

For every murder, there is a murderer who placed a "positive" value on the murder.

[Corcaigh]

It is pretty well generally accepted that it is a combination of societal bias and self-selection,

So your argument is that the NAS and FRS are a particular subset of the scientific elite, and not representative of the whole.

What's your hypothesis why this particular subset is so lacking in religious belief?

[PeterMP]

So your argument is that the NAS and FRS are a particular subset of the scientific elite, and not representative of the whole.

What's your hypothesis why this particular subset is so lacking in religious belief?

I'd guess that it is related to self-selection (people that are more religious are more likely to go into fields related to religion or are lead to by religion (those related to helping people)) and issues related to people valuing things differently (i.e. family and having kids over being in a lab for 10 hours a day, being active in a Church and potentially even doing some mission work that requires being away for awhile and would therefore limit ones committment to a career).

And partly some societal bias related to people "conveying" to religious people that they won't be "good" are aren't "welcome" in the sciences (and not just by atheist in sciences, but by others that are religious). You don't think a young religious, but science oriented person is going to be turned off by the likes of Dawkins. And yet those sorts of books make up a good chunk of the "popular" "scientific" literature?

Heck, part of it is partly the existing sexual bias:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/sex-differences-in-global-atheism-part-n/

[brandymac27]

In 2009, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press polled members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on belief in a higher power. The study found that 51 percent of members polled expressed such a faith, compared to 95 percent of the American public. Additionally, the National Academy of Science charted belief in God as low as 5.5 percent among biologists and 7.5 percent among physicist and astronomers in a 1998 study.

Are scientists atheists? Should they be?

A False Dichotomy

The clash between science and faith often comes down to how one chooses to define atheism, according to neuroscientist and author David Eagleman.

"Strict atheism, as it's often practiced, gives the impression that the opposite of believing in some sort of god or supernatural being is to believe in a closed cosmos," Eagleman says, "It seems to me that we as a society have lately been caught in this false dichotomy where it's either God as the guy with the beard on the cloud or nothing at all."

Eagleman, who heads the Eagleman Laboratory for Perception and Action at Baylor College of Medicine, believes that scientists do their calling a disservice when they entrench themselves within a strict atheistic viewpoint. On the other hand, religious explanations for the cosmos naturally lack hard evidence and can contain disruptive or even dangerous ideas.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/are-scientists-atheists.html

[alexey]

...

Please stop wasting my time. We can base morality on empirical evidence, of which there are tons, or we can base it on ancient myths, of which there are tons as well. If you would like to make a case for the latter, be my guest. Otherwise I think we are done.

[Koolblue13]

[doctorshockalu]

Maybe ... but it's a good method of identifying advanced level scientists, versus people who might classify themselves as such because they studied a bit in college, or own a white lab coat. While I never achieved, nor aspired, to membership of NSA or being a FRS, my fellow doctoral and post-doc students were almost entirely irreligious bunch, as were the rest of the professional research group.

Taking the membership of NAS or FRS as a very well defined population, it is remarkable that those with a very high commitment to scientific endeavor, are far, far less religious than the population as a whole. People who are totally committed in other fields, say professional sport or workaholic doctors, to take two at random, are not characterized by very low levels of religiosity.

The correlation between advanced scientific training/practice and lack of belief is very strong.

Lol sample size. My wife works in a research lab and almost all of her peers share some type of religion. It's in chemistry and most of the research is atmospheric. I personally think the super smart scientists still fall within the general statistical parameters of belief.

[PeterMP]

Please stop wasting my time. We can base morality on empirical evidence, of which there are tons, or we can base it on ancient myths, of which there are tons as well. If you would like to make a case for the latter, be my guest. Otherwise I think we are done.

What empirical evidence is there that human life has more value than its component parts?

[alexey]

Please stop wasting my time. We can base morality on empirical evidence, of which there are tons, or we can base it on ancient myths, of which there are tons as well. If you would like to make a case for the latter, be my guest. Otherwise I think we are done.

What empirical evidence is there that human life has more value than its component parts?

I thought that I was pretty clear in my post.

Define the word value, and answers will come.

[PeterMP]

I thought that I was pretty clear in my post.

Define the word value, and answers will come.

You and I aren't going to define "value" the same way, but you want to claim that there is an issue right off the bat w/ my defintion so it seems like that is a waste of time.

I wouldn't use empircal evidence to define value so that would be an issue.

Why should there be human morality other than what each individual finds in themselves?

[alexey]

Please stop wasting my time. We can base morality on empirical evidence, of which there are tons, or we can base it on ancient myths, of which there are tons as well. If you would like to make a case for the latter, be my guest. Otherwise I think we are done.

You and I aren't going to define "value" the same way, but you want to claim that there is an issue right off the bat w/ my defintion so it seems like that is a waste of time.

I wouldn't use empircal evidence to define value so that would be an issue.

Why should there be human morality other than what each individual finds in themselves?

Yes it is a waste of time. You are raising issues with an imperfect approach for which you are not proposing a viable alternative.

[Koolblue13]

Why should there be human morality other than what each individual finds in themselves?

For one, I don't think there is very much, but I guess the same reason you don't throw garbage from your window. So you don't have to see it every day.

[PeterMP]

Yes it is a waste of time. You are raising issues with an imperfect approach for which you are not proposing a viable alternative.

I'm proposing an imperfect approach that you continually attack because it is imperfect.

Your same comments apply equally to your attacks on religion.

But you only one to discuss one approaches imperfections/assumptions.

Realistically, I'm making an "assumption" (God exist).

However, you also want to make some assumptions (e.g. that human life has value of its component parts).

Yet, you want to act like only one side is making assumptions.

[alexey]

I'm proposing an imperfect approach that you continually attack because it is imperfect.

Your same comments apply equally to your attacks on religion.

But you only one to discuss one approaches imperfections/assumptions.

You do have a point there. I suppose the key is to continue discussing evidence, providing reasons, and trying to improve the thing in question.

In case of morality, improvement is better morality.

In case of religion, improvement is no religion.

[PeterMP]

You do have a point there. I suppose the key is to continue discussing evidence, providing reasons, and trying to improve the thing in question.

In case of morality, improvement is better morality.

In case of religion, improvement is no religion.

What is better morality?