God: No magic required

[lweisenthal]

I think everyone may have scared Larry away.

Hi Popsicle, by no means. I've been impressed and gratified by a number of the more thoughtful replies and comments.

I try not to get consumed with real time debating with a half dozen simultaneous debate opponents. It becomes a black hole, with regard to time. Yesterday, I had to do some actual work (medics have to work on weekends, not infrequently). Then I watched the Super Bowl. Today, I've got a lot of work to do on my day job. I'm very pleased that people are still sufficiently interested to wish to continue this thread. I'm happy to stay engaged, as long an anyone else remains interested in so doing. Many of the recent comments don't really require a response. A couple of these comments do appear to be asking me for a response, and I'll definitely reply, by and by.

I'm gratified that Resetsu is reading the blog I tried to link, but wasn't permitted to by this blog editor. It's great that Resetsu made the effort to actually copy and post one of the pages, and thereby facilitated the efforts of any others who wish to find and peruse my writings related to the current subject matter. In addition to the blog in question and Disqus, an easy way to see the sorts of things I write is to Google "Weisenthal/Huntington" or "Larry Weisenthal" or "Dr. Weisenthal" or whatever. There's also a ton of archival material on Google Groups, which can be accessed under my name or else under "runnswim," which is a part of the email address I used for my sports related discussions. As I wrote, my life is pretty much an open book, and I'm certainly not a closet conservative religionist, out to save souls from damnation. Religion-wise, you'll find that I've devoted a vastly greater amount of time arguing against the rigid doctrines of such religionists, than I've spent quibbling with atheists and agnostics about this stuff.

Note to blog editor: No, this wasn't a sneaky attempt on my part to circumvent the blog rules against advertising. It's simply that I don't want anyone thinking that I'm hiding an agenda. Resetsu posted a page from my blog, wherein all I do is to link to this particular thread on this particular blog. I think Resetsu's implication (I'm not great at understanding his/her thinking) is that I'm somehow trying to secretly "use" this atheist blog for some nefarious purpose. So I'm just trying to be transparent. I don't provide any commercial service relating to this stuff. I don't write self help books or run a counseling service or anything like that. It's just something in which I have an interest, and I personally find it much more stimulating to talk and debate with opposite minded people than to stay inside of a cozy bubble, with friends and like-minded people. I've had more than 20,000 posts to political blogs and virtually all of them have been on conservative blogs, arguing with political and religious conservatives, many of whom probably hate my guts even more than Resetsu (though seldom have I encountered a debate opponent with a higher ratio of personal invective to thoughtful counter-argument). Anyway, kind editor, if you find that anything in this post is in violation of your advertising rules, I'd ask you to simply delete whatever part of it crosses whatever line may exist.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

[Mister Agenda]

Hi Chad, My main assertions are simply the following:

(1) There are objective "this life" personal advantages associated with theism, as opposed to atheism, in terms of mental and physical well-being, including longevity.

In the USA there is certainly a reduced chance of being disowned by your family, fired from your job, and potential in-laws blocking your relationships; so there is an advantage to at least pretending to believe theistic claim. I'm not sure it is a net gain, though.

(2) Therefore, it is not irrational for a present day non-theist to determine if it's possible for he/she to morph into a theist.

I'm not so sure it's rational to desire to believe something you don't think is true because of the perks.

(3) Theism is perfectly compatible with state of the art knowledge and theory, relating to physical cosmology, without the need to invoke mysticism or magic.

So is atheism, and atheism is more parsimonious.

[Popsicle]

Ok thanks Larry, will look forward to reading more on the topic.

I think everyone may have scared Larry away.

Hi Popsicle, by no means. I've been impressed and gratified by a number of the more thoughtful replies and comments.

I try not to get consumed with real time debating with a half dozen simultaneous debate partners. It becomes a black hole, with regard to time. Yesterday, I had to do some actual work (medics have to work on weekends, not infrequently). Then I watched the Super Bowl. Today, I've got a lot of work to do on my day job. I'm very pleased that people are still sufficiently interested to wish to continue this thread. I'm happy to stay engaged, as long an anyone else remains willing to do so. Many of the recent comments don't really require a response. A couple of these responses do appear to be asking me for a response, and I'll definitely reply, by and by.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

[Mister Agenda]

(3) Do the "clinical trial." Pick out a couple or three religions with convenient branch offices. Go to the services, as participatory theater. Suspend disbelief. Participate. See what happens. It's not really all that different from setting up an array of radio telescopes to intercept radio waves emanating from outer space, from postulated inhabited planets. There's no evidence at all that such extra-terrestrial life exists, but it's possible, and legitimate scientists have found it worth exploring.

It's different from what scientists do in this respect: you can find anything you're looking for in your own head, whether it really exists or not. You're suggesting we jump down the rabbit hole of trying to convince ourselves something is true. That's not seeking, that's self-induced gullibility.

[Mudhammam]

I love how Larry naively thinks beliefs are simply "chosen" based on the personal advantages their alleged to bestow. If I believed that the FSM kept me wrapped in his warm, loving, noodly embrace and was part of a flock that sustained itself through weekly sermons and fellowship devoted to the FSM, perhaps it could in a superfluous way make me feel happier, more confident, and even healthier. Isn't that how many delusions work? But notice the big, glaring "If" at the beginning of the proposition. The reason I don't enjoy those potential benefits is that I don't believe in the FSM, nor would I join its church because I did (maybe I could join because its women adherents are attractive and still reap the same psychological rewards). It sounds like Larry's argument is not for belief but for having healthy relationships and being active in the community. Well then, great. And no shit.

[lweisenthal]

It's been two months since my last post. I thought that I'd said all of that which was relevant to the points I was trying to make and that I had reached the point of just going around and around with my various critics.

So I resolved to save bandwidth, until I had something new to offer.

A couple of weeks ago, that which has been termed one of the most important discoveries in the history of science was announced.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gues...-now-what/

I now view the existence of God as not only a far out speculative possibility but as a physical science certainty.

Let me emphasize that it's important not to confuse "God" with doctrines or dogmas. For the sake of this conversation, let's discard traditional views of God, which are all wrapped up in doctrines and dogma, and redefine God.

God is not necessarily the creator of all things visible and invisible, though he may or may not be the creator of some things visible and invisible. God is a higher order of sentient consciousness, with whom other sentient beings are capable of communicating, to their great personal benefit. God is not necessarily singular. I think that there probably are plural Gods in the multiverse -- perhaps near infinite numbers of such beings.

I've stated before that I believe there is little or no credible evidence that God answers prayers for physical miracles. I personally believe that praying for peace (or cancer cures) is a fruitless waste of time, for both God and humans. But there is enormous empirical evidence that God routinely and dependably answers prayers for such things as fortitude, solace, liberation from substance abuse, improved personal morality, courage, and perseverance. These latter prayers are of enormous importance and enormous personal benefit, and, by the standards of objective peer review medical research, improve happiness, healthiness, and longevity.

The two leading models of the multiverse, which now appears to be a likely reality are (1) an infinite universe, with the same physical principles of our own, or (2) an infinite number of parallel universes, with different physical principles than our own. Either of these possibilities makes the existence of God(s) a physical certainty.

Once you move out 10^10^29 meters from earth, you have every conceivable arrangement of atoms, both qualitatively and in terms of geometry. Beyond that point, you begin to duplicate things. Once you've doubled this distance, you've got an exact duplicate of everything that ever existed, including you and me. Explanation defies concise summary; if interested start with the above link and move on from there (additional links are on my website, which I'm not permitted to cite on this forum, as it is considered to be "advertising").

The point is, that, in an infinite universe, you will inevitably have super-sentient Boltzmann brains, comprised of both ordinary and dark matter and ordinary and dark energy. It is a mathematical certainty. In infinite parallel universes, you will inevitably have exotic forms of energy, in infinite configurations, also producing Boltzmann brains with powers and capabilities unimaginable on a human scale. This is also a mathematical certainty.

I and literally billions of other people regularly talk to God. In my own case, I needed physical science plausibility to make the sincere effort which is required. Most other people simply need simple faith to make the effort. It works -- unquestionably works.

I personally think that militant denial of God has now become simply another form of neo-luddism.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

[Rampant.A.I.]

This is the ultimate form of the God of The Gaps argument. And relies on pure hypotheticals:

A Boltzmann brain is a hypothesized self aware entity which arises due to random fluctuations out of a state of chaos. The idea is named for the physicist Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906), who advanced an idea that the universe is observed to be in a highly improbable non-equilibrium state because only when such states randomly occur can brains exist to be aware of the universe.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

[lweisenthal]

This is the ultimate form of the God of The Gaps argument. And relies on pure hypotheticals:

A Boltzmann brain is a hypothesized self aware entity which arises due to random fluctuations out of a state of chaos. The idea is named for the physicist Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906), who advanced an idea that the universe is observed to be in a highly improbable non-equilibrium state because only when such states randomly occur can brains exist to be aware of the universe.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

I used "Boltzmann Brain" in its most generic sense. Here's a simple and compelling explanation (offered previously on this thread). The human brain is a mass of "wired" bioelectrical energy, contained in a mass the size of a loaf of bread. A Boltzmann brain is organized wireless energy, contained in a parallel universe of infinite size or else within the dark energy and matter of our own universe, where this could also be of infinite size. If one makes the effort to understand the Boltzmann brain concept, one concludes that it is a certainty that such entities exist in an infinite multiverse.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

[fr0d0]

"I've got a little blog where I discuss some of this stuff in slightly more detail:"

Wow.. MORE detail?!

Welcome Larry. Beautiful writing!

[Minimalist]

It was only after I decided that it was plausible that there could be a God that I decided that it wouldn't be a waste of my time to determine if it were possible to develop a belief in said postulated God through regularly participating in several types of religious services.

Roughly the same plausibility as a bunch of leprechauns dancing the tarantella while wearing lederhosen in Jerusalem during a Passover seder but, if you want to con yourself I can't see where you are doing anyone else any harm.