Enough of this crap, I want to hear directly from god

[R00tKiT]

The general, well established tendency of children to think teleologically could be a cultural or behavioral tick entirely unrelated to whether there is any purpose in natural phenomena,

Sure, behavioral trick... and children aren't usually into culture yet.

yes...exactly this, yes,

Let me then clarify further,

In a world without gear manufacturers, the term gear is ill defined. Nobody ever saw a world where gears exist without their manufacturers- did you?.. yet you had no problem with that, you had no problem with dealing with the properties of a set that might be empty.

The assertion : "In a world without god, something" can be equivalent to "In the empty set, something".

You have to be certain that a world without god can exist. Certain.

I, on the other hand, don't need to, since I didn't deny the existence of such a being, I only deal with this observable world, as it is, and then try to make reasonable inferences. 

If what you're telling us, above, is that you can think of no satisfying explanation for absolutely anything, then that's too bad, I guess you'll have to be stuck with no satisfying explanation for anything, plugging that gap in your own knowledge with the same fairies that children to invent to explain how chickens came to be for laying eggs.

I am actually imploring you to think of the only reasonable explanation, that there is only one world we observe and that it points to its manufacturer.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Actually, in regards to Klorophyll's question about 'Naturally arising gears' there is a cricket or other sort of jumping insect that, in its neophyte stage, actually has evolved interlocking toothed growths. The better to control the power of its spring/jump. Such is the force of the 'Launch' that asymmetric jumping force would be rather detrimental to the creatures health.

Said growths are not evident in the adults. Presumably because of lack of moulting the exoskeleton hence there's no way to 'Repair' any wear/damage.

But, yes, in one creature so far humans have found 'Organic' gears.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, behavioral trick... and children aren't usually into culture yet.

They're being raised by and in one, that's why those fairies they imagine are so specifically cultural.  Horse gods for horses, cow gods for cows......  

You have to be certain that a world without god can exist. Certain.

I don't have to be, and I certainly don't have to be certain about anything about gods to know that human children explain the behaviors of human children better than a genie does.

That being said..I am completely certain that there's no god, so..no problem either way, eh?

I, on the other hand, don't need to, since I didn't deny the existence of such a being, I only deal with this observable world, as it is, and then try to make reasonable inferences. 

How many all powerful magicians have you seen in the observable world, how many compared to children?

I am actually imploring you to think of the only reasonable explanation, that there is only one world we observe and that it points to its manufacturer.

The reasonable explanation for the behavior of children is that some fact about children accounts for the behavior of children. Sure, we could look at their parents as their manufacturers, and it does seem to be the case that our parents have alot to do with what and whether we ascribe purpose to this or that, as well as the general shape of the fairies their children imagine. The earth, for it's part, points to a star that you might be familiar with as it's manufacturer. Should we explain childrens' tendency to ascribe purpose to natural objects as a product of the sun?

Tell me, is it common to believe these things that you've been sharing where you're from?

[R00tKiT]

They're being raised by and in one, that's why those fairies they imagine are so specifically cultural.  Horse gods for horses, cow gods for cows......  

That's not really true in all religions. It's well known in Islam that God doesn't resemble human beings in any way. The only reason why the Qur'an, for example, speaks of God hearing or seeing his creatures, is because this is all we can understand. Every human being understands from the use of the verb hear that the deity in question can detect all our sound acoustic waves.

This is something most non religious people miss I think, when they go ahead and start criticising our holy books. The fact that traditional religions describe God in what may seem to some as not worth of his attributes is a simple consequence of our limited understanding ability. It's obvious that we can't comprehend the infinite, therefore it's logically impossible to convey the full explanation of god's " ways" in human language, that is, a language with limited expressive ability.

And it's not a problem that a god can't express his own functioning in our own language. God can't do what is logically impossible.

I don't have to be, and I certainly don't have to be certain about anything about gods to know that human children explain the behaviors of human children better than a genie does.

That being said..I am completely certain that there's no god, so..no problem either way, eh?

I am really curious to know how you became certain that there's no god. If you actually can prove that, you certainly deserve the highest possible distinction in the field of philosophy of religion.

Back to human children, if you think their parents -their culture, how they raise their children ,etc- are the only explanation we should look for, you're simply moving the goalposts, and the same problem arises with their parents' childhood, and so on. Also, the tendency to believe in children seems to transcend their culture.

To reprise the words of the psychologist Justin L Barett : "Certainly cultural inputs help fill in the details but children's minds are not a level playing field. They are tilted in the direction of belief".
Culture and behavioral tricks you're talking about only give children concrete descriptions of the supernatural agent they'e naturally inclined to believe in, a child may think that god is the air he breathes,  or that he resembles his father physically, and so on. But that has nothing with to do with the natural inclination we're interested in.

How many all powerful magicians have you seen in the observable world, how many compared to children?

I don't see a lot of things inside the observable world. Not being able to see an all powerful being.. never sounded like a problem to me. We are unable to see countless things which are far less powerful, and which do shape our lives in many ways.

The earth, for it's part, points to a star that you might be familiar with as it's manufacturer.  Should we explain childrens' tendency to ascribe purpose to natural objects as a product of the sun?

Tell me, is it common to believe these things that you've been sharing where you're from?

Again, you're moving the goalposts. It's a bit depressing to know you're satisifed with stardust as the complete explanation of our existence, that it really was a blind process all along.

What I'm sharing here isn't really beliefs, but reasons to believe non religious people use too in their everyday life.

[The Grand Nudger]

They're being raised by and in one, that's why those fairies they imagine are so specifically cultural.  Horse gods for horses, cow gods for cows......  

That's not really true in all religions.  It's well known in Islam that God doesn't resemble human beings in any way. The only reason why the Qur'an, for example, speaks of God hearing or seeing his creatures, is because this is all we can understand. Every human being understands from the use of the verb hearing that the deity in question can detect all our sound acoustic waves. 

It is flatly and demonstrably true of all children and of religions such as your own based on anthropomorphized and unseen forces. Gods.

It's a being..not like a toaster or a rock, and it has desires and a shitlist, not like a toaster and a rock.  It's concerned about the things that concern us, not like a toaster and a rock.

Are you absolutely certain that you wan to insist that your magic book gets it's description of a god meaningfully wrong on account of some human beings simple minded idiocy?  Go right ahead, it won't end well.

This is something most non religious people miss I think, when they go ahead and start criticising our holy books. The fact that traditional religions describe God in what may seem to some as not worth of his attributes is a simple consequence of our limited understanding ability. It's obvious that we can't comprehend the infinite, therefore it's logically impossible to convey the full explanation of god's " ways" in human language, that is, a language with limited expressive ability.

And it's not a problem that a god can't express his own functioning in our own language. God can't do what is logically impossible.

I don't care about your god, what it is or isn't, what it does or doesn't do, whether it can hear or has ears.  I criticize your religion for being a steaming pile of ethical garbage - not for whether your silly god exists.  

I am really curious to know how you became certain that there's no god. If you actually can prove that, you certainly deserve the highest possible distinction in the field of philosophy of religion.

The same way that anyone becomes certain of anything else.  It's not actually a problem for religion, because religion doesn't proceed on the basis that a god belief is true - but that the normative content of the religion is true.  You don't need gods to have a religion, and their existence is unrelated to the truth of the contents of a religion unless the religious themselves are so foolish as to tie that inconsequential detail to their own hot garbage.  

Back to human children, if you think their parents -their culture, how they raise their children ,etc- are the only explanation we should look for, you're simply moving the goalposts, and the same problem arises with their parents' childhood, and so on. Also, the tendency to believe in children seems to transcend their culture.

I think that biology and environment are a better explanation for why an animal does something than an all powerful magician.  Do you disagree?

To reprise the words of the psychologist Justin L Barett : "Certainly cultural inputs help fill in the details but children's minds are not a level playing field. They are tilted in the direction of belief".
Culture and behavioral tricks you're talking about only give children concrete descriptions of the supernatural agent they'e naturally inclined to believe in, a child may think that god is the air he breathes,  or that he resembles his father physically, and so on. But that has nothing with to do with the natural inclination we're interested in.

The item in question was why children ascribe purpose to natural phenomena.  Not why they imagine fairies..which is even easier to explain than why they ascribe purpose to natural phenomena.  Children imagine shit.  Do we disagree? 

Don't you..in fact, believe that all of the children who imagine fairies which are not your god are..in effect, imagining shit?  It's not as if you believe that all of the fairies and gods imagined by children are real..as a muslim, now is it?

How many all powerful magicians have you seen in the observable world, how many compared to children?

I don't see a lot of things inside the observable world. Not being able to see an all powerful being.. never sounded like a problem to me. We are unable to see countless things which are far less powerful, and which do shape our lives in many ways.

Sounds to me like a long winded way to say that you've seen more children than gods in the observable world, and if your earlier comments were at all accurate - that you refer o what you can see in the observable world..then it stands to reason that you would accept that children are a better explanation for some item about children than an all powerful magician you've never seen a single representative of.

Again, you're moving the goalposts. It's a bit depressing to know you're satisifed with stardust as the complete explanation of our existence, that is really was a blind process all along.

What I'm sharing here isn't really beliefs, but reasons to believe non religious people use too in their everyday life.

What goalposts, you asked me to consider why children ascribe purpose to natural phenomena, and, obliquely..you seem to be completely perplexed as to why or that they imagine things.

You've given me no reason to believe in your silly god...and it wouldn't matter if you could scare one up...because it isn't on account of the fact that I know there are no gods that I reject islam anymore than the fact that I reject north korean totalitarianism because I don't believe in kim jong un. 

It's on account of facts about islam.  Ask around...I'll bet you'll find that the existence of a god isn't your problem, as an evangelist.  Christians ave no trouble acknowledging the existence of yur god...and yet they maintain, as I maintain, that your religion is hot garbage.  What do you think about christianity, whose god you believe in, and it's waking talking god-man? Did they imagine that shit, or is it a clear indication that their god is true - and by extension..your religion is false?

For my part, you don't really know whether you would find what I think about the universe satisfying because you don't ask so much as insist that it must be so-and-so. I think that you would be surprised. I have, for example.in this thread.. repeatedly floated the idea that children ascribe purpose to natural phenomena because they are observing a natural teleology. They see purpose, because ..at least some of the time...there is purpose. They imagine purpose where there is not (when they do) because they expect it on account of seeing so much of it elsewhere. If that's the case, these things aren't exactly blind (no more so than the children who see them, in fact), wouldn't you agree?

Is this unsatisfying? Would you like to argue that this is not the case, that the purpose children see is not there, ever? This is what happens when you try to engage with people following a script supplied by your shaman. Is the item of your gods existence more important to you than the item of purpose? Is there no way that you can conceive of purpose outside of your god....and, if so, in a world without your god, what would that mean for purpose..or the smaller set of purpose that children see?

Let me ask you this, is the exhortation we find from the god man in the new testament to treat others as you would be treated...less true..if jesus were not, in fact, a god? Same questiuon I asked before, really. Are chickens not for laying eggs..if there is no chicken god?

Take your time...don't rely on the belief that you will find some fatal flaw in my reasoning. Allow for the possibility that I'm very good at this - even if my position on gods is, ultimately, false. Perhaps "allah" granted me a gift, lol. The very worst thing that could happen, if you were able to accept and conceptualize these arguments and concerns, is that your own inference for a god would be improved. Perhaps, and again by the will of allah...that's my purpose.

[R00tKiT]

It is flatly and demonstrably true of all children and of religions such as your own based on anthropomorphized and unseen forces.  Gods.


It's a being..not like a toaster or a rock, and it has desires and a shitlist, not like a toaster and a rock.  It's concerned about the things that concern us, not like a toaster and a rock.

A deity wants some things and doesn't want other things... so what? it has what you call a "shitlist".. so what? It resembles human beings in some ways .. so what ? Do you think this is enough grounding to conclude that religion is man made....?
The famous physicist Niels Bohr told Einstein to stop telling God what to do, when the latter declared a deity isn't supposed to create a universe with the laws of QM.
I strongly suggest you follow Bohr's advice.

Are you absolutely certain that you wan to insist that your magic book gets it's description of a god meaningfully wrong on account of some human beings simple minded idiocy?  Go right ahead, it won't end well.

That's a cheap strawman you have there. I am not referring to any isolated group of "simple-minded" people, but to human language in general. It has limited expressive range by definition, and therefore cannot fully convey God's intentions.
Once you have that in mind, a holy book that describes the supreme being in simplist ways is not a problem, it's the only logical possibility one can have.

I don't care about your god, what it is or isn't, what it does or doesn't do, whether it can hear or has ears.  I criticize your religion for being a steaming pile of ethical garbage - not for whether your silly god exists. 

If you don't care about god, you shouldn't care about religion a fortiori. I get it, it's easier to shout and make noise on ethical issues than to follow lines of argument.

The same way that anyone becomes certain of anything else.  It's not actually a problem for religion, because religion doesn't proceed on the basis that a god belief is true - but that the normative content of the religion is true.  You don't need gods to have a religion, and their existence is unrelated to the truth of the contents of a religion unless the religious themselves are so foolish as to tie that inconsequential detail to their own hot garbage.

I'm not so sure about your definition of religion, then. If you think scientology counts as a religion, then you should narrow down the list of beliefs you consider to be religions.

In the case of Islam, it's clearly the case that Muhammad's whole message - that is, absolute monotheism and submission to Allah - is empty of content once you remove the existence of Allah from it.

The item in question was why children ascribe purpose to natural phenomena.  Not why they imagine fairies..which is even easier to explain than why they ascribe purpose to natural phenomena.  Children imagine shit.  Do we disagree? 

Don't you..in fact, believe that all of the children who imagine fairies which are not your god are..in effect, imagining shit?  It's not as if you believe that all of the fairies and gods imagined by children are real..as a muslim, now is it?

Of course children imagines shapes of all kinds and ascribe them to God. Of course some of them - or all of them, with enough endoctrination- think the legend of Santa Claus is real. But their gullibility shouldn't be confounded with their natural tendency to reason teleologically. This natural tendency to believe in the supernatural does make one vulnerable to accept myths, conspiracy theories, etc.

So, again. I am not talking about the content of what they imagine, but rather about what fuels these imaginations, what drives all this curiosity towards purpose and the supernatural, nobody imagines things the right way, anyway.

What goalposts, you asked me to consider why children ascribe purpose to natural phenomena, and, obliquely..you seem to be completely perplexed as to why or that they imagine things.

You considered parents to be the complete explanaton of their children's behavior. But obviously, parents were themselves children, displaying the exact same tendency towards purpose. And this can be observed in all cultures.

You've given me no reason to believe in your silly god...and it wouldn't matter if you could scare one up...because it isn't on account of the fact that I know there are no gods that I reject islam anymore than the fact that I reject north korean totalitarianism because I don't believe in kim jong un. 

It's on account of facts about islam.  Ask around...I'll bet you'll find that the existence of a god isn't your problem, as an evangelist.  Christians ave no trouble acknowledging the existence of yur god...and yet they maintain, as I maintain, that your religion is hot garbage.  What do you think about christianity, whose god you believe in, and it's waking talking god-man?  Did they imagine that shit, or is it a clear indication that their god is true - and by extension..your religion is false?

No christian acknowledges the existence of Allah, I really don't know where did you get this one from. There is nothing in common between a trinitarian belief and a monotheistic one.

The christian belief - the trinitarian part, at least - is, obviously, a big fat logical fallacy. It's absolutely obvious that the same entity can't be three and one at the same time. W.L. Craig, their best apologist, compares the trinitanian God to the mythological dog... The latter has three heads, and is still called a dog. But this is ridiculous, every single head can't be considered a dog.

That's what their best apologist has to offer to defend trinity. How is that compared to Islam ?

With regards to totalitarianism, you're simply rehearsing Hitchens' main objection to religion : that god is a tyrannical being. But tyranny is usurpation of authority, or undeserved absolute authority. But in the case of a supernatural being, it actually has all the attributes of absolute authority, there is no element of usurpation involved. In other words, the unique God qualifies, by definition, to be the supreme being. A tyran, in the other hand, subverts meritocracy and eliminates opposition, because he knows there could be way more qualified indivduals to rule a country.

For my part, you don't really know whether you would find what I think about the universe satisfying because you don't ask so much as insist that it must be so-and-so.  I think that you would be surprised.  I have, for example.in this thread.. repeatedly floated the idea that children ascribe purpose to natural phenomena because they are observing a natural teleology.  They see purpose, because ..at least some of the time...there is purpose.  They imagine purpose where there is not (when they do) because they expect it on account of seeing so much of it elsewhere.  If that's the case, these things aren't exactly blind (no more so than the children who see them, in fact), wouldn't you agree?

Is this unsatisfying?  Would you like to argue that this is not the case, that the purpose children see is not there, ever?  This is what happens when you try to engage with people following a script supplied by your shaman.  Is the item of your gods existence more important to you than the item of purpose?  Is there no way that you can conceive of purpose outside of your god....and, if so, in a world without your god, what would that mean for purpose..or the smaller set of purpose that children see?

I asked you how you reached certainty about god not existing, I still didn't get a satisfying answer. Generally speaking I feel that most non religious people I spoke to don't usually appreciate too many questions, or outright answer a different question, just as you did when you mentioned ethics.. because the god issue turned to be not that important.

I actually do think purpose cannot be conceived in a world without God. Without a deity an afterlife is clearly out of the question, therefore some evil people in this world actually triumphed, and the most horrendous crimes and genocides in human history will really go unpunished. With all this in mind, we should be less ambitious when defining the word purpose.

[The Grand Nudger]

For all of your claims to authority, I would just tell you and your god to go pound sand.  That's it, that's all, that's my entire rebuttal.  You've got the soul of a slaver and a slave.  Good for you.  I don't.  What's it gonna do...kill me...lol?  

I think that what blindsided you before, that made you incapable of seeing the holes in your rationale, surround your professed inability to conceive of purpose in a world without a god.  Lets start at the very bottom.  If this is..in fact...a world without a god, and if you do conceive of purpose...then you actually can conceive of purpose in a world without a god.  You're doing it right now. If this is a world with a god, I am still perfectly capable of conceiving of purpose without a god.

Could there be an afterlife without a god?  I don't see why not and plenty of people believe in one but not the other.  Is it true that, without a god, evil would triumph - defined as going unpunished?   Hell, it may be true that this happens -with- a god, but people who believe in karma tend not to think so even though they commonly don't believe in gods either.

Now, you may be incapable....but children don't seem to be incapable. They see purpose whether they believe in gods or not. Is there something wrong with the contention that they see purpose because there is purpose..and for that matter....how is adding or a removing a god supposed to change the idea that chickens are for laying eggs?

[R00tKiT]

I think that what blindsided you before, that made you incapable of seeing the holes in your rationale, surround your professed inability to conceive of purpose in a world without a god.  Lets start at the very bottom.  If this is..in fact...a world without a god, and if you do conceive of purpose...then you actually can conceive of purpose in a world without a god.  You're doing it right now.  If this is a world with a god, I am still perfectly capable of conceiving of purpose without a god. 

Riight.. You just missed the part where you have to prove that this is a world without a god.....

Could there be an afterlife without a god?  I don't see why not and plenty of people believe in one but not the other.  Is it true that, without a god, evil would triumph - defined as going unpunished?   Hell, it may be true that this happens -with- a god, but people who believe in karma tend not to think so even though they commonly don't believe in gods either.

You don't see why not ? Then you are a more gullible person than all religious people. If there is no all-powerful god, then resurrecting dead people is the most unlikely thing imaginable. And there is no good reason to think there is one. Religions incorporate the idea of an afterlife precisely because it requires the magic of an all-powerful being to actually happen.

And come on. Does karma account for the holocaust? or the holodomor ? or an innocent Iraqi girl being raped, then butchered in front of her family by american soldiers - angels of democracy ? No, I don't think karma or any other silly definition you might have of purpose can replace a real, hardcore afterlife to make up for this injustice.

Now, you may be incapable....but children don't seem to be incapable.  They see purpose whether they believe in gods or not.  Is there something wrong with the contention that they see purpose because there is purpose..and for that matter....how is adding or a removing a god supposed to change the idea that chickens are for laying eggs?

I think children don't consider the existence of god that much. Now I ask you again what purpose are you referring to, that you think children can see, is it some prospect of a better future ? some noble dedication to some particular way of life .. ? As I said, once we take away the divine, the word purpose takes less interesting meanings.

[The Grand Nudger]

Riight.. You just missed the part where you have to prove that this is a world without a god.....

That's where you're wrong.  I didn't miss it...I don't have to prove that this is a world without god to demonstrate why children imagining things or thinking teleologically isn't a good indication of a god.

I can suggest that there are facts about children which explain this.

Nor do I have to prove that there is no god to demonstrate that purpose can be and is conceived of without one.

You don't see why not ? Then you are a more gullible person than all religious people. If there is no all-powerful god, then resurrecting dead people is the most unlikely thing imaginable. And there is no good reason to think there is one. Religions incorporate the idea of an afterlife precisely because it requires the magic of an all-powerful being to actually happen.

And come on. Does karma account for the holocaust? or the holodomor ? or an innocent Iraqi girl being raped, then butchered in front of her family by american soldiers - angels of democracy ? No, I don't think karma or any other silly definition you might have of purpose can replace a real, hardcore afterlife to make up for this injustice.

No, Kloro, I don't see why not, and I don't think that you will be able to explain why there simply couldn't be an afterlife without a god, or why there simply couldn't be any karmic effect without a god.

Remember, whenever you babble about your own god I think that it sounds as silly as you think other peoples superstitions are.

If, ultimately, it's true that there is no afterlife and no god and no karma..then sure, bad people go unpunished. Arguing that it would be bad if something were not true is not the same as arguing something is true..and, in fact, arguing that something must not be true because that would be bad....is a textbook example of a bad inference. Sometimes...bad things are true.

I think children don't consider the existence of god that much. Now I ask you again what purpose are you referring to, that you think children can see,  is it some prospect of a better future ? some noble dedication to some particular way of life .. ? As I said, once we take away the divine, the word purpose takes less interesting meanings.

Who knows what purpose they see, you'd have to ask them.  I've noticed that my kids see all sorts of purpose - and not always the same purpose, in this or that.  You may find purpose outside of a god less interesting, but that's not the same as purpose outside of god not existing or being possible.

[R00tKiT]

I can suggest that there are facts about children which explain this.

Nor do I have to prove that there is no god to demonstrate that purpose can be and is conceived of without one.

And what are these facts ? You provided none. Children are just tilted towards belief, regardless of their culture or their parents' influence.
Of course you can loosen the definition of purpose to take out anything about the divine or heaven. But that would be just you playing with nomenclature.

No, Kloro, I don't see why not, and I don't think that you will be able to explain why there simply couldn't be an afterlife without a god, or why there simply couldn't be any karmic effect without a god.

Yes.. Of course I can't prove a negative assertion. What's remarkable, though, is that you're prepared to consider the possibility of an afterlife with no god, but not prepared to consider that the universe is the product of a conscious architect. We have more good reasons for the latter than for the former. I think that's a bit dishonest.
Absent any deity, nothing differentiates me technically from a battery. Does a dead battery have an afterlife ? We can't prove that it doesn't, at the same time we know it just won't happen.

If, ultimately, it's true that there is no afterlife and no god and no karma..then sure, bad people go unpunished.  Arguing that it would be bad if something were not true is not the same as arguing something is true..and, in fact, arguing that something must not be true because that would be bad....is a textbook example of a bad inference.  Sometimes...bad things are true.

I agree. And in this case, what purpose can you make of the universe, while thinking about all the billions of victims of war, genocide, famine, torture, rape, how they're gone forever, how their only precious lives are taken away forever by some lunatic's thirst for power or lust..?