NASAdude

Let's see what Santa put under my Christmas tree.
1) I didn't put up a tree.
2) Santa doesn't exist.
3) I live alone, so no one can give a gift pretending to be a fat slob in a red suit with an affinity for keeping caribou and enslaving short folk.

Ergo... Santa didn't put any presents under my Christmas tree.

So bugger off!

Whatever. I went to the Christmas eve service. That was nice. It seemed overly-scripted, but what do I expect? Everyone got their semi-annual church attendance in, so they were all happy. Silly me for expecting/wanting something a little more personal/meaningful.

I got a card from my parents. I IM'd with my mother for a while. I got an e-card from a friend. So it's been a typical year. Three notable remembrances. So that makes this a triple X year. Merry XXX-mas!

How about you? Did you get something you really wanted (or didn't expect) for Christmas? (Reindeer thong? Yikes!) Did you spend time with someone who you didn't expect to see? Did you have a XXX X-mas? Leave a comment and let me know.

Posted by NASAdude at 03:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It basically comes down to the fact that no one can win the argument. God can't be proven to exist or vice versa. Even so, I thought it would be worthwhile to take a look at some of the key arguments made on both sides. Much of the information is paraphrased from this site.

Let me know if I need to add or edit anything.

Arguments against the existence of God

1. Faith is just wishful thinking
   "One of the most common criticisms of belief in the Christian God is that it is mere wishful thinking. According to this view, Christianity is just an emotional crutch for those unable to deal with the reality of life without God, and those that are strong enough to do without religion should do without religion." 

   To be honest, I really don't get this argument.  It would make a lot more sense to me to argue that it's a crutch to deal with the uncertainty of what happens after death. 

   "The second response to the view that Christianity is just an emotional crutch for the weak is that if all that believers were after were a comforting belief system then they could do much better than Christianity."

   I disagree with this as well.  Yes, it is possible to come up with a God that has fewer rules and restrictions to avoid damnation.  But would this really result in a happier life?  If you can live any way you want (crime, abuse, etc.) without care or concern and still get into heaven, would that really make people as a whole (a society) more content? 

   People may want a crutch, but if it makes them too comfortable, they can't explain why there is hardship in life.  That counteracts the belief in God.  So the belief system must have some requirements to please God and get into heaven.  This (and some would say the idea of evil) provides an "out" to explain why life isn't all pleasant and trouble free.

   "The final response to the view that Christianity is just an emotional crutch for the weak is that ideas are only comforting if we have some reason to believe that they are true."

   "Most of us worry about money at some point in our lives. Isn’t it great, though, to think that if you ever run up debts that you can’t repay, all you have to do is to look down the back of the sofa and you’ll find enough loose change to cover the bill? Isn’t that thought comforting? No? The thought isn’t comforting because we have no reason to think that it is true. If we had a reason to think that it were true, then yes, that would be a great thought to have, but we don’t, and so it isn’t."

   "If thoughts are only comforting if we have reason to think that they are true, though, and many believers find comfort in Christianity, then those believers must have some reason to think that Christianity is true that has nothing to do with it’s being good news. To put the point in another way, Christianity is only effective as a crutch for those for whom it is not merely a crutch, for those that have some reason to believe it. Unless you have some reason to believe that Christianity is true apart from its being comforting, then it won’t be much comfort at all."

   This is horrible logic in many ways; it's an attempt to argue that people understand on a subconscious level if something is true or not, allowing them only to believe what is true.  On the face of the author's argument sounds good.  But we have real-world examples showing it is not correct.

   1. Many people buy lottery tickets or gamble hoping to "win it big" and ultimately make themselves happier by having lots of money.  Logically it can be shown that it is far more likely that gamblers will dig themselves even deeper to debt.  But they still gamble, in a sense believing that they will find a large sum of money in their sofa.  Is it a reasonable belief?  No.  Do they believe (hope) it will happen?  Yes.  Are they correct in their belief?  No.
   2. Another problem is that just because you believe something will make you happy, it isn't necessarily true.  Many people are independently wealthy yet find that money doesn't make them happy.  In fact, they may find their lives are a little easier and without so much hardship, but emotionally it's not very satisfying.  Even though most people will agree that money won't make them happy, those same people still hold personal wealth as a key goal of their lives.  So the corollary is that just because there is evidence that believing in God won't make you happy (there are lots of unhappy Christians), that doesn't prevent people from still trying.  Likewise, belief that it is true doesn't make it so.
2. Ontological argument - based on logic.  "It argues that once we mentally grasp the concept of God we can see that God’s non-existence is impossible. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a perfect being that could not possibly fail to exist."

   "The ontological argument claims that the idea that God doesn’t exist is just as absurd as the idea that a four-sided triangle does. According to the ontological argument, we can tell that the claim that God doesn’t exist is false without having to look into it in any detail. Just as knowing what “triangle” means makes it obvious that a four-sided triangle is impossible, the argument suggests, knowing what “God” means makes it obvious that God’s non-existence is impossible."

   "The idea of an imperfect God, though, we have already said, is just as absurd as the idea of a four-sided triangle; “perfect” is part of what “God” means, just as “three-sided” is part of what “triangle” means. As the idea that God doesn’t exist implies his imperfection, therefore, the idea that God doesn’t exist is just as absurd, just as obviously false, as the idea that a four-sided triangle does. God’s non-existence is therefore impossible."

   This is a fun argument, but it really doesn't hold any water beyond being a logic puzzle.  I can make a word for a perfect pizza, an über-pizza, which by definition is perfect in every way.  It clearly must exist, because if it does not, I would be able to imagine a pizza that is more perfect than all those that exist.  This is the same argument that Gaunilo made, his being a perfect island.

3. The first cause argument - Simply put, every effect must be preceded by a cause.  If you trace the universe back, eventually there is no evident cause, so that cause must have been God. 

   Causality is sound in a Newtonian view, but may not hold up so well on the quantum level, or from a multiple-universe perspective.  And we certainly know now that the universe doesn't strictly obey Newtonian physics.  Even if one subscribes to the Big Bang theory, what is its cause?  God?  Is lack of evidence of a non-deific cause reason to conclude God did it?  Does everything truly require a cause?  The rebuttal is that God is eternal, and doesn't require a cause.  But how do we "know" that is true; is it simply a convenient belief to fill in an unknown cause (or perhaps a misunderstanding of causality in a quantum universe)? 

4. Argument of design - The key to this argument is that dozens of parameters had to be "just so" for the universe to be the way it is, such that it can exist and support life.

   The provided rebuttal is so well-written I will provide it verbatim.  "The weak anthropic principle is the principle that in order for the universe to be observed it must be such as to permit the existence of observers, and that there is therefore no need to explain why we observe the universe to be fit for habitation. If the universe were unfit for habitation, atheists suggest, then there would be no observers, and so the universe would not be observed to be unfit for habitation. All observations of universes must therefore be observations of universes fit for habitation. There is no need to explain why we observe the universe to be fit for habitation; we could not possibly observe it to be otherwise."

5. The moral argument - Morality is absolute.  It is a command to direct action or inaction.  Commands must come from someone.  Where do the commands of morality originate?  Commands are only authoritative if they come from a ruling and powerful source.  Since morality [should] override all other considerations in making a decision, the provider of morality must have absolute authority.  No human has absolute authority, so clearly morality must be a form of commands from God, and therefore morality is evidence of God's existence.  

   I don't see why morality needs to come from God. 

   1. Morality certainly isn't absolute, even though we like to think it could be.  There are situation where morality is in conflict (stealing to save a life).  People kill in the name of their God.  Supposedly God has wiped out entire civilizations in one situation and forgiven in another.  Does that teach us an absolute morality?
   2. Morality is an evolved sociologic tool to provide an advantage to individual survival through group survival.  Morality helps us live together cohesively in large groups.  Living in large groups allows us to help each other and provide easy access to many breeding choices.  Groups allows us to produce and store more food, to help those in need, to get helped when in need.  So morality as a set of evolved social norms benefits survival.  Once we realize this, we can force evolution of morality to suit our needs for future survival.  It isn't absolute; it's what we (as a whole) choose it to be.

Let's look at the other side, now.

1. Atheism is just wishful thinking
   "The first response to the view that belief in God is mere wishful thinking, then, is to point out that it is just as easy to argue that atheism is just an emotional crutch as it is to argue that belief in God is an emotional crutch.

   "Belief in God has consequences; if one believes in God, then one must make a decision either to follow him or to oppose him. Anyone who believes that Christianity is true must either commit themselves to living out their faith, or set themselves in opposition to God. This choice can be hard to face, but by denying Christianity one can avoid having to face it. Atheism, then, offers an easy way out for those unable to deal with the reality of life with God."

   "Some think that this view of atheism is correct, that atheists really are consciously aware of the existence of God but choose to rebel against him by professing unbelief. This is not my view. My point here is just that if Christianity can be rejected as irrational simply because some people find it comforting, then the same must be true of atheism. And if atheism cannot be dismissed in this way, as the atheist will surely hold, then neither can Christianity."

   I think it's only fair to apply this reasoning to both belief and non-belief.  However, is it really comforting to think that when you die you simply blink out of existence?  I think not.  It's fair to test both belief and non-belief, but is it more reasonable to use a null hypothesis of the existence of God or the absence of God?

   To understand this better, let's look at a hypothetical example.  Some people believe there is a yet to be observed new species of monkey with feathers that lives at the deepest depths of the ocean, beyond our ability to ever know absolutely if it exists.  There are ancient stories (hearsay) of people who claim to have seen the creature.  Bananas sent into the ocean depths never return.  Is it more reasonable to hypothesize that if there is no evidence there is or is not this unusual monkey species? 

   Some say that lack of evidence for God's existence means God doesn't exist.  Some say that lack of evidence against God's existence means God does exist.  Wishful thinking or sound reasoning? Would you care put all your money in the lottery?

2. The paradox of the stone - "Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God. God, therefore, does not exist."

   This one is downright silly.  How would this logic puzzle affect God's existence?  I'm not even going to bother.  Read someone else's rebuttal here.

3. The problem of evil - "The problem is that the traditional conception of God implies that if he exists then he knows how to, wants to, and is able to prevent all suffering. If such a God existed, though, then we would expect him to prevent all suffering. Suffering, though, is a familiar part of the world around us; it has not been prevented. There is, therefore, the argument concludes, no such God."

This argument doesn't prove anything one way or another.  The easy out is bringing up the excuse of "free will".  So man can create independent of God, and man created evil.  It doesn't really satisfy either side of the debate, and is yet another statement that can't be supported or refuted.

Ultimately God currently does or does not exist.  Debate would not change the truth, whatever it is.  Belief or non-belief doesn't make either true.  Rather, isn't it more reasonable to find out what is true before jumping on someone else's bandwagon?

Also, keep in mind that these arguments have nothing to do with determining which world religion is correct (if any).  They simply examine means to show that God might exist.  It says nothing about Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, etc. beliefs. 

Additional opinions and references: 1 2 3 4 5 6

As usual, comments (on an overall or point-by-point basis) and additional recommended links are welcomed.

Posted by NASAdude at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Last night I played a four-person game of Scrabble with some friends. I played a bingo word for the second time in my life. The word was zoologic. One 'o' was a blank, and the word played on a 'c' from another player. In retrospect, I made an error by placing the blank on a double letter score, which could have been a real 'o'. Since the word hit a double-word space, this change could have made the word worth an extra 2 points. Oh well. I still kicked butt with a final score of about 237 with the next best score at around 150. (I don't recall the details.)

Admittedly, I did cheat a little. (And I confessed afterwards!) It was near the end of the game, and no 'c' tiles on the board were useable. The player prior to me wanted help choosing a word since all he had were consonants. I helped him make 'clod' and 'id', which I thought was actually the best possible play for his tiles and the board configuration. Coincidentally (or maybe not so much), it also gave me a 'c' for 'zoologic'.

Sorry Craig for abusing your trust! I did give you a great play for what you had, though.

Posted by NASAdude at 01:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've gone on about how to hear God speaking (here and here). I'd like to get past the how and move onto what to do when it happens.

First, how do you differentiate between all the voices? One probably won't be so lucky to hear instruction from an "I am" claimant. But even if there is a claim made, is it truly God? Perhaps it's the government's mind-control rays. Or maybe it's your telepathic neighbor. Or your telepathic pet. ("The great I-am says to make some bacon for your dog. Now!") Mmmmm... bacon.

There are so many ideas (voices?) running through my head, that it's difficult to know what to do. Commonly the argument is made that the instruction or information should stand up to scrutiny from the bible. But we all know that any nutter (like you... you're hearing voices) can pull anything they want from the bible. So maybe the bible isn't the ultimate test. Another method is to run the idea by your religious peers and leaders. That sounds like a good idea, but consider why God would be speaking to you. God would need to intervene if you wouldn't make a choice according to God's will. But if you're leading a faithful life, you're already doing your best to lead your life according to the bible and according to the interpretation provided by your denomination and that of your local leaders. That said, the instruction will be contrary to the advice that you'd get from your religious peers and leaders. So now we know we shouldn't test the voice against 1) the bible or 2) your peers and leaders. Now we're in a quandary.

Or are we? Just obey the voice. It's clear that if someone has the ability to speak directly into your mind, you probably don't want to piss them off. Just do what they say.

What if there is conflicting information? First let's assume all the voices sound the same with the exception of your own thoughts. (Certainly you know what you are thinking, right?) One voice says turn left, one says turn right, and your thought is to go straight. As previously said, don't piss of anyone who can put a outside thought into your head. So don't go straight. It's either left or right. Even if you wanted, referring to the bible or a peer/leader wouldn't help, since to us mere mortals there is no morally better choice between the two. In that case, how does one follow God's will? I don't know; flip a coin. (Hey, if you believe that God can speak to you, you'd better believe that God can influence a simple coin toss.)

Here's another argument for not running the voice's information by your peers/leaders.

Perhaps it's best to not share with others that you hear voices. In fact, when God talks to someone these days, there is likely a requisite condition that they not speak of it to anyone.

Why?

Quite simply, if that person was supposed to know what you were told, God would tell that person directly. It would be presumptuous to think that you know better than God.

From My Heart's Cry by Anne Graham Lotz, (free during December, '04)

"God told me to tell you that you are supposed to marry me." I received that astonishing bit of information on a lined sheet of notebook paper that had food stains on it when I was fourteen years of age! ... I remember writing back rather crisply, "Well, He hasn't told me!"
... Some church leaders publicly expressed disapproval of my ministry because I was willing to speak when there were men in the audience. And their stand was based on what they said God says.
A typical argument from one of these men was something like this: "God told me that you as a woman are not to speak to an audience in which there are men. God has also told me women are not to be preachers."
My initial reaction was the same as it was when I was fourteen: "Well, God hasn't told me!"

So just keep the voices to yourself! If it's important, God will tell whoever needs to know Himself. If it's not God, then you won't embarrass yourself.

Posted by NASAdude at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)