Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Neutraligon]

Except for one thing, you have yet to demonstrate that a god existing in any way validates empirical evidence. A god existing does not mean I can trust my senses any more then if no god exists.

If God exists, then we have a reason to believe that reality also exists, which would validate empirical evidence.

Why is there a reason to think reality exists if a god exists? Why does reality existing validate empirical evidence? I think therefore I am is enough to demonstrate that some form of reality exists (even if I am simply a brain in a vat). Does that validate empirical evidence?

[Valrifell]

Except for one thing, you have yet to demonstrate that a god existing in any way validates empirical evidence. A god existing does not mean I can trust my senses any more then if no god exists.

If God exists, then we have a reason to believe that reality also exists, which would validate empirical evidence.

The extent to which reality exists is irrelevant to our quest and ability to explain it.

Or, my quest, I guess. Cogito ergo sum, and all that.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If God exists, then we have a reason to believe that reality also exists, which would validate empirical evidence.

Why is there a reason to think reality exists if a god exists? Why does reality existing validate empirical evidence?

Because 1) If God exists, there's no reason to doubt our observations are false. Such an existence would not be implausible, because a God could absolutely create such a thing. and 2) If reality exists, presumably our observations can be trusted.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If God exists, then we have a reason to believe that reality also exists, which would validate empirical evidence.

Why is there a reason to think reality exists if a god exists? Why does reality existing validate empirical evidence? I think therefore I am is enough to demonstrate that some form of reality exists (even if I am simply a brain in a vat). Does that validate empirical evidence?

Yes, that's what I meant by self-evidence of reality validating empirical evidence.

[Godular]

Why is there a reason to think reality exists if a god exists? Why does reality existing validate empirical evidence?

Because 1) If God exists, there's no reason to doubt our observations are false.

And yet your own position declares that we cannot trust our perceptions. Why the hell does this god thing make any difference?

Such an existence would not be implausible, because a God could absolutely create such a thing.

Or it could have just... you know... happened. That happens, you know.

and 2) If reality exists, presumably our observations can be trusted.

We know reality exists because we're experiencing it right fucking now. That doesn't mean this god thing somehow made that possible.

[Bombadil]

Except for one thing, you have yet to demonstrate that a god existing in any way validates empirical evidence. A god existing does not mean I can trust my senses any more then if no god exists.

If God exists, thenwe have a reason to believe that reality also exists, which would validate empirical evidence.

That works without the need for the first four words, which merely complicate things.

[Godular]

Why is there a reason to think reality exists if a god exists? Why does reality existing validate empirical evidence? I think therefore I am is enough to demonstrate that some form of reality exists (even if I am simply a brain in a vat). Does that validate empirical evidence?

Yes, that's what I meant by self-evidence of reality validating empirical evidence.

Still has no reason to have god jammed in there.

[Neutraligon]

Why is there a reason to think reality exists if a god exists? Why does reality existing validate empirical evidence?

Because 1) If God exists, there's no reason to doubt our observations are false.

Sure there is, a god existing has no effect on whether our observations are true or false. In fact even if you claim a god exists right now, we know that our observations are often false. It is why mirages and optical illusions are a thing.

Such an existence would not be implausible, because a God could absolutely create such a thing.

A god existing does not necessitate that the god could create such a thing

and 2) If reality exists, presumably our observations can be trusted.

Brain in a vat suggests that some form of reality exists. that does not mean our observations can be trusted.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because 1) If God exists, there's no reason to doubt our observations are false.

And yet your own position declares that we cannot trust our perceptions. Why the hell does this god thing make any difference?

Such an existence would not be implausible, because a God could absolutely create such a thing.

Or it could have just... you know... happened. That happens, you know.

and 2) If reality exists, presumably our observations can be trusted.

We know reality exists because we're experiencing it right fucking now. That doesn't mean this god thing somehow made that possible.

I don't agree that it could have just happened, as I explained earlier.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because 1) If God exists, there's no reason to doubt our observations are false.

Sure there is, a god existing has no effect on whether our observations are true or false. In fact even if you claim a god exists right now, we know that our observations are often false. It is why mirages and optical illusions are a thing.

Such an existence would not be implausible, because a God could absolutely create such a thing.

A god existing does not necessitate that the god could create such a thing

and 2) If reality exists, presumably our observations can be trusted.

Brain in a vat suggests that some form of reality exists. that does not mean our observations can be trusted.

Fair point, I'm tired and getting confused because I have so many different arguments going at once, so I'll make a single post that sets out my views on the matter rather than just continuously taking the Devil's advocate position with solipsism as I have been doing.

[Godular]

And yet your own position declares that we cannot trust our perceptions. Why the hell does this god thing make any difference?



Or it could have just... you know... happened. That happens, you know.



We know reality exists because we're experiencing it right fucking now. That doesn't mean this god thing somehow made that possible.

I don't agree that it could have just happened, as I explained earlier.

I don't really give a shit whether you agree or not. You can't provide evidence that there was any kind of intent or specific entity involved aside from this remarkably tenacious case of wishful thinking.

[VoVoDoCo]

Why is there a reason to think reality exists if a god exists? Why does reality existing validate empirical evidence?

Because 1) If God exists, there's no reason to doubt our observations are false. Such an existence would not be implausible, because a God could absolutely create such a thing. and 2) If reality exists, presumably our observations can be trusted.

Actually, our observations can be false.

In one biblical story, god stopped the rotation of the earth. The historians wrote down that the sun had stopped moving. This is incorrect. They wrote something down wrong despite being guided by the holy spirit to write it down. I don't think the historians were dumb by any means, it's just their god performed a miracle that he knew would be misinterpreted.

[Valrifell]

If God exists, thenwe have a reason to believe that reality also exists, which would validate empirical evidence.

That works without the need for the first four words, which merely complicate things.

If you deny the validity of your perceptions and the existence of everything, might as well toss essential logic in there too since nothing matters.

And any proof of god could therefore be dismissed, since reason can not be determined to be valid by itself.

[Godular]

That works without the need for the first four words, which merely complicate things.

If you deny the validity of your perceptions and the existence of everything, might as well toss essential logic in there too since nothing matters.

And any proof of god could therefore be dismissed, since reason can not be determined to be valid by itself.

Heck, nothing would have meaning... not even the words I'm typing on this computer.

Wait... what the hell is a computer? What the hell am I doing with my fingers? What the hell are fingers?!

[United Muscovite Nations]

Basically, for the proof of reality, I believe in Descartes' formula of thought proving existence, through self-evidence. I take that further to say that it is unlikely that my observations are false, and that what I experience is most likely existence. However, I observe an elegant simplicity in the complexity of the universe, specifically, how the natural laws of the universe come together to form a functional whole. Specifically, I refer to how the subatomic particles combine to form 118 different types of atoms*, which can combine to form millions of types of molecules which can continue to gain in complexity up to the point of intelligent life. Moreover, the laws of the universe, such as gravity, space, and time, point to that the universe had a "beginning" at which we can no longer observe. I reason that there must be something which explains how the "beginning" took place, and that something must lie beyond space and time, a being beyond our reality, which created our universe. Such a being would reasonably, be called a god.

*I know this is overly simplified

[Godular]

Basically, for the proof of reality, I believe in Descartes' formula of thought proving existence, through self-evidence. I take that further to say that it is unlikely that my observations are false, and that what I experience is most likely existence. However, I observe an elegant simplicity in the complexity of the universe, specifically, how the natural laws of the universe come together to form a functional whole. Specifically, I refer to how the subatomic particles combine to form 118 different types of atoms*, which can combine to form millions of types of molecules which can continue to gain in complexity up to the point of intelligent life. Moreover, the laws of the universe, such as gravity, space, and time, point to that the universe had a "beginning" at which we can no longer observe. I reason that there must be something which explains how the "beginning" took place, and that something must lie beyond space and time, a being beyond our reality, which created our universe. Such a being would reasonably, be called a god.

*I know this is overly simplified

See, your failure is in going from 'something' to 'being' without any justifiable rationale.

[VoVoDoCo]

Basically, for the proof of reality, I believe in Descartes' formula of thought proving existence, through self-evidence. I take that further to say that it is unlikely that my observations are false, and that what I experience is most likely existence. However, I observe an elegant simplicity in the complexity of the universe, specifically, how the natural laws of the universe come together to form a functional whole. Specifically, I refer to how the subatomic particles combine to form 118 different types of atoms*, which can combine to form millions of types of molecules which can continue to gain in complexity up to the point of intelligent life. Moreover, the laws of the universe, such as gravity, space, and time, point to that the universe had a "beginning" at which we can no longer observe. I reason that there must be something which explains how the "beginning" took place, and that something must lie beyond space and time, a being beyond our reality, which created our universe. Such a being would reasonably, be called a god.

*I know this is overly simplified

>We have to know what came before the big bang to give it serious thought
>God's just kind of always been there

[Bombadil]

Basically, for the proof of reality, I believe in Descartes' formula of thought proving existence, through self-evidence. I take that further to say that it is unlikely that my observations are false, and that what I experience is most likely existence. However, I observe an elegant simplicity in the complexity of the universe, specifically, how the natural laws of the universe come together to form a functional whole. Specifically, I refer to how the subatomic particles combine to form 118 different types of atoms*, which can combine to form millions of types of molecules which can continue to gain in complexity up to the point of intelligent life. Moreover, the laws of the universe, such as gravity, space, and time, point to that the universe had a "beginning" at which we can no longer observe. I reason that there must be something which explains how the "beginning" took place, and that something must lie beyond space and time, a being beyond our reality, which created our universe. Such a being would reasonably, be called a god.

*I know this is overly simplified

Simple building blocks and complexity

It's not to say someone had to build the universe but just the mathematical ease with which you can create huge complexity from simple blocks.

I think some people can't grasp the vastness of time over which that complexity occurs.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Basically, for the proof of reality, I believe in Descartes' formula of thought proving existence, through self-evidence. I take that further to say that it is unlikely that my observations are false, and that what I experience is most likely existence. However, I observe an elegant simplicity in the complexity of the universe, specifically, how the natural laws of the universe come together to form a functional whole. Specifically, I refer to how the subatomic particles combine to form 118 different types of atoms*, which can combine to form millions of types of molecules which can continue to gain in complexity up to the point of intelligent life. Moreover, the laws of the universe, such as gravity, space, and time, point to that the universe had a "beginning" at which we can no longer observe. I reason that there must be something which explains how the "beginning" took place, and that something must lie beyond space and time, a being beyond our reality, which created our universe. Such a being would reasonably, be called a god.

*I know this is overly simplified

>We have to know what came before the big bang to give it serious thought
>God's just kind of always been there

If something predates the Big Bang, it predates time and space, and its existence is inconceivable to us in an ordinary sense. Such a thing would not require causation, because it could exist eternally.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Basically, for the proof of reality, I believe in Descartes' formula of thought proving existence, through self-evidence. I take that further to say that it is unlikely that my observations are false, and that what I experience is most likely existence. However, I observe an elegant simplicity in the complexity of the universe, specifically, how the natural laws of the universe come together to form a functional whole. Specifically, I refer to how the subatomic particles combine to form 118 different types of atoms*, which can combine to form millions of types of molecules which can continue to gain in complexity up to the point of intelligent life. Moreover, the laws of the universe, such as gravity, space, and time, point to that the universe had a "beginning" at which we can no longer observe. I reason that there must be something which explains how the "beginning" took place, and that something must lie beyond space and time, a being beyond our reality, which created our universe. Such a being would reasonably, be called a god.

*I know this is overly simplified

Simple building blocks and complexity

It's not to say someone had to build the universe but just the mathematical ease with which you can create huge complexity from simple blocks.

I think some people can't grasp the vastness of time over which that complexity occurs.

That's my point exactly. If you came across an entire world built with legos, you wouldn't say that it arose naturally.

[Godular]

>We have to know what came before the big bang to give it serious thought
>God's just kind of always been there

If something predates the Big Bang, it predates time and space, and its existence is inconceivable to us in an ordinary sense. Such a thing would not require causation, because it could exist eternally.

We don't know what occurred before the big bang, so trying to say that it predates time and space seems rather silly, because we don't know that it didn't exist beforehand.

[Bombadil]

Simple building blocks and complexity

It's not to say someone had to build the universe but just the mathematical ease with which you can create huge complexity from simple blocks.

I think some people can't grasp the vastness of time over which that complexity occurs.

That's my point exactly. If you came across an entire world built with legos, you wouldn't say that it arose naturally.

No, I just have to understand that great complexity can arise from simple building blocks, I don't need to assume a creator. I did hesitate on using this example because I knew the *builder* bit would be seized on rather than the principle of great complexity from simple building blocks over vast time.

Kind of like how evolution works.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If something predates the Big Bang, it predates time and space, and its existence is inconceivable to us in an ordinary sense. Such a thing would not require causation, because it could exist eternally.

We don't know what occurred before the big bang, so trying to say that it predates time and space seems rather silly, because we don't know that it didn't exist beforehand.

I personally believe the scientific hypothesis that time and space are properties of the universe, and thus didn't exist "prior" to the Big Bang. I don't know what that hypothesis is called, however.

[VoVoDoCo]

>We have to know what came before the big bang to give it serious thought
>God's just kind of always been there

If something predates the Big Bang, it predates time and space, and its existence is inconceivable to us in an ordinary sense. Such a thing would not require causation, because it could exist eternally.

But why must it have sentience? And purpose? And drive? And emotion?

[Godular]

We don't know what occurred before the big bang, so trying to say that it predates time and space seems rather silly, because we don't know that it didn't exist beforehand.

I personally believe the scientific hypothesis that time and space are properties of the universe, and thus didn't exist "prior" to the Big Bang. I don't know what that hypothesis is called, however.

Time is a human construct. Even so, your 'belief' still makes claims it has no right to make.