The God of Convenience

[Lek]

If someone tells you they rode dragons with F'lar during Threadfall, do you seek a reasonable explanation, or do you write the idea off?

If say, a billion sane and educated people with no prior "illusions" told me that, and I couldn't find any scientific explanation for it, then I would consider other options.

Personal experience is subject to misperception, effects of fatigue and drugs, and simple dishonesty. Skepticism should be applied in direct proportion to the exotic nature of the claim. That means that god-claims must meet very high bars.

You're right about what you say here. But you're limited to the box you're living in because you won't accept anything that doesn't follow the laws of nature. We admit that we aren't aware of any other life in the universe, but we feel fairly confident that there is because it makes sense to us. Why can't there be another type of existence. Is our universe the only thing that exists?[/quote]

---

If someone tells you they rode dragons with F'lar during Threadfall, do you seek a reasonable explanation, or do you write the idea off?

If say, a billion sane and educated people with no prior "illusions" told me that, and I couldn't find any scientific explanation for it, then I would consider other options.

Personal experience is subject to misperception, effects of fatigue and drugs, and simple dishonesty. Skepticism should be applied in direct proportion to the exotic nature of the claim. That means that god-claims must meet very high bars.

You're right about what you say here. But you're limited to the box you're living in because you won't accept anything that doesn't follow the laws of nature. We admit that we aren't aware of any other life in the universe, but we feel fairly confident that there is because it makes sense to us. Why can't there be another type of existence? Is our universe the only thing that exists?

[Jenny A]

But if you have an experience, and can't substantiate it scientifically, then you'll believe that you really didn't have that experience or you just imagined it. Of course, saying you just imagined it is a scientific conclusion. You believe that there is no way to substantiate an experience but by natural scientific means. So if it can't be proven by natural science, then it doesn't exist.

To prove something scientifically, is to prove it using a particular formal set of methods. Everyday methods and proof work just fine for proving that things around us exist.

I tell the real from the imaginary by a number of very simple methods. Generally speaking if an object is of a kind I ordinarily perceive with my senses and one which other people ordinarily perceive, I can be quite confident that the thing exists. When it comes to the existence of things in my presence this is really all that's necessary and I don't even have to really think about it. Then there are things I've only seen in pictures, read about, or been told about. I don't apply the scientific method to those either. Unless the thing is unlikely, or the person presenting has reason to lie, I just assume those things too.

But in either case I would accept scientific evidence showing either the thing is an illusion or that it is not what it appears to be.

What is different about things which require proof is that they violate the ordinary rules of how the world works. If a ball falls up rather than down, some further investigation is in order. Maybe the ball was thrown rather than dropped. Maybe it's filled with helium or hot air. Maybe there's a vacuum in the ceiling drawing it in. But I won't just believe in it without looking further.

A friend of mine's father tells of a UFO frequently seen on his air force base. It was a bright light seen by pilots passing rapidly over the horizon during takeoff. He saw it himself. Like my upward falling ball, it was not ordinary even though it was experienced by many pilots. So he investigated a little and discovered that that it was a reflection of some local buildings following the curve of his windshield on some runways in bright light.

Things I suspect of being imaginary or hallucinated go a step further even than the UFO and the upward falling ball. They are things that can't be accounted for my any ordinary explanation. That in itself is not proof that a thing is imaginary, but it is suggestive. Add that the experience is neither easily repeated nor easily verified, and we're stepping further towards hallucination. If you add that you have to really want to see it, or that it won't appear if others who don't want to see it are there, I'll tilt further in the direction of believing it's imaginary. Add that those who do see it, all see very different things, and I'll be approaching 100% sure it's imaginary.

God is like this. According to most believers you have to ask to see him and really want to see him to see him. The sighting can't be verified by others. The sightings are ephemeral, sometimes they happen sometimes they don't even though the thing is supposed always be there. And finally, those doing the seeing disagree about what they've seen.

The disagreements are large: Is there one god, or many? Is the god visible or unseeable? Knowable or unknowable? The disagreements are small: Does the god want us to eat pork? Pray on Sunday, or Saturday? The disagreements are personal: I prayed and god told me to take a new job on the opposite side of the country, but my wife prayed and god said to stay here.

God has all the hallmarks of a hallucination. Therefore, like ghosts, ESP, extra-terrestrial abductions, and unicorns, I will not accept god without scientific proof.

[dyresand]

No i know everything around me exists because i experience it everyday.

Exactly. But if you have an experience, and can't substantiate it scientifically, then you'll believe that you really didn't have that experience or you just imagined it. Of course, saying you just imagined it is a scientific conclusion. You believe that there is no way to substantiate an experience but by natural scientific means. So if it can't be proven by natural science, then it doesn't exist.

If i do not experience anything at all.
A. I don't exist so how am i talking to you.
B. I am dead and how could a dead man use internet.

[Minimalist]

If someone tells you they rode dragons with F'lar during Threadfall, do you seek a reasonable explanation, or do you write the idea off?

My guess is that Lek believes everything he's told. He's the type.

[Tonus]

God hasn't changed, but our perception of him has. Where do I go when science doesn't answer my questions? Should I just remain in the box and hope that someday scientists will give me the answer or should I search in other ways?

Science has a pretty solid track record when it comes to explaining things. "Other ways" does not. It seems to me that over the course of human history, the scientific approach has not only helped us achieve considerable knowledge, it has also spent a good amount of time showing just how useless "other ways" are.

[The Grand Nudger]

So if someone tells you that he has experienced God and can't give you any scientific evidence for it, that's the end of it for you?

For me? No. For the god claim? Yes.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If someone tells you they rode dragons with F'lar during Threadfall, do you seek a reasonable explanation, or do you write the idea off?

If say, a billion sane and educated people with no prior "illusions" told me that, and I couldn't find any scientific explanation for it, then I would consider other options.

Are you asserting that a billion people have been in the physical presence of your god? That would be news, don't you think? Why have we not read of it?

Because they don't claim to have experienced their god in a verifiable manner. And there's a reason for that: it doesn't happen.

You're right about what you say here. But you're limited to the box you're living in because you won't accept anything that doesn't follow the laws of nature.

Can you point to one thing that unquestionably exists that doesn't follow those laws?

The box I live in unquestionably exists, and I'm having so much fun exploring its many still-mysterious facets that spending time worshiping a hateful monster of a god doesn't hold much charm for me. The fact that this god-thingy doesn't have a single shred of evidence in favor of his existence, on this or any other "plane", "dimension", or any other hidey-hole you invent to explain his absence, means that not only do I find him morally repugnant, but so unlikely as to not merit further attention -- no matter how many people have been successfully programmed to suspend their disbelief.

We admit that we aren't aware of any other life in the universe, but we feel fairly confident that there is because it makes sense to us. Why can't there be another type of existence. Is our universe the only thing that exists?[

My answer is one of the most liberating, and valuable, sentences in the English language: I do not know. I am happy to consider any other type of existence you might have in mind. But you'd best have evidence in proportion to the extraordinary nature of your claim, if you wish to convince most skeptics, this one included.

[Lek]

The box I live in unquestionably exists, and I'm having so much fun exploring its many still-mysterious facets that spending time worshiping a hateful monster of a god doesn't hold much charm for me. The fact that this god-thingy doesn't have a single shred of evidence in favor of his existence, on this or any other "plane", "dimension", or any other hidey-hole you invent to explain his absence, means that not only do I find him morally repugnant, but so unlikely as to not merit further attention -- no matter how many people have been successfully programmed to suspend their disbelief.

Do you believe that Plato existed and that he wrote the works attributed to him?

[dyresand]

The box I live in unquestionably exists, and I'm having so much fun exploring its many still-mysterious facets that spending time worshiping a hateful monster of a god doesn't hold much charm for me. The fact that this god-thingy doesn't have a single shred of evidence in favor of his existence, on this or any other "plane", "dimension", or any other hidey-hole you invent to explain his absence, means that not only do I find him morally repugnant, but so unlikely as to not merit further attention -- no matter how many people have been successfully programmed to suspend their disbelief.

Do you believe that Plato existed and that he wrote the works attributed to him?

He did exist....

Born 428/427 or 424/423 BCE (BCE Before chicken existed)
Athens
Died 348/347 BCE (aged c. 80) (BCE Before chicken existed)
Athens

http://www.ancient.eu/plato/

read up.

[Lek]

Do you believe that Plato existed and that he wrote the works attributed to him?

He did exist....

Born 428/427 or 424/423 BCE (BCE Before chicken existed)
Athens
Died 348/347 BCE (aged c. 80) (BCE Before chicken existed)
Athens

http://www.ancient.eu/plato/

read up.

Why do believe this?