3 ms·

> I believe in God for a number of reasons. I'm not sure that what you describe as "reasons" actually qualify as reasons. > Firstly, it just seems much more p

> I believe in God for a number of reasons. I'm not sure that what you describe as "reasons" actually qualify as reasons. > Firstly, it just seems much more plausible that someone created the universe. Why is that more plausible? You think that there is "an uncaused thing," which you call "God," and that this uncaused thing created the universe. Why is that more plausible than the uncaused thing being the universe itself? The universe manifestly exists; your idea of "someone" who created it does not (it may exist, but does not manifestly exist in the way the universe does). > If we walked in to the middle of nowhere and saw a beautiful statue, most of us would say "wow, > I wonder who made it?" not "wow, what an incredible coincidence that this thing which has > meaning to me just spontaneously formed". This is a variant of a common creationist argument, often promoted by those who prefer the term "intelligent design" to "creationism." But so-called "intelligent design" is just a variant of hard-core creationism. > Another main reason is that I _feel_ like there is a God, and generally my feelings tell me > things. When I feel hungry, I don't think "ah, but that feeling is only an illusion!" instead I > go and eat. This conflates two very different senses of the words "feel" and "feelings." Hunger is a biological sensation; your "feeling" that there is a God is not and is a very, very different kind of "feeling." Consider this: if you had been left alone on a desert island as a child, with no other humans around, you would still feel hunger, because that is a natural, biological sensation. But you almost certainly would not have the "feeling" you have now that there is a God, and even if you did, that God would even more certainly not have the characteristics you ascribe to it now. The "God" that you "feel" exists, which has whatever characteristics you ascribe to it, is a social construct. In the absence of a social environment, it is vanishingly unlikely that you would construct a similar idea on your own. Again, this "feeling" is not at all like hunger: it is a purely psychological phenomenon in a way that "feeling" hungry is not. Using the words "feel" and "feeling" in these two different ways confuses the issue rather than clarifies it. > I feel like there is a God, so I go and eat. This is not really even intelligible.

knightoffaith 3y ago
>This is a variant of a common creationist argument, often promoted by those who prefer the term "intelligent design" to "creationism." But so-called "intelligent design" is just a variant of hard-core creationism. Are you implying that belief that the universe was intelligently designed necessarily implies belief that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, among other beliefs? That doesn't seem right.
- f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
  No, not implying that. These are not my terms, but I would call the 6000 years ago stuff "young earth creationism," distinct from several kinds of "old earth creationism." My point was just that proponents of so-called "intelligent design" sometimes try to create the impression that it is not itself a form of creationism, but it very much is. Not exactly the same as young earth creationism or any of the old earth variants, but still very much creationism nonetheless. The basic idea as I understand it is that life exhibits "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved naturally, and therefore must have been created by some "designer." It is the "must have been created" part that makes is fundamentally creationist.
  - knightoffaith 3y ago
    >My point was just that proponents of so-called "intelligent design" sometimes try to create the impression that it is not itself a form of creationism, but it very much is. Not exactly the same as young earth creationism or any of the old earth variants, but still very much creationism nonetheless. Ah, I see, yes, it does seem to me that most if not all intelligent design proponents are creationists (usually I see creationism being used to refer to young earth creationism). I don't know of intelligent design proponents who deny creationism, that's interesting. >The basic idea as I understand it is that life exhibits "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved naturally, and therefore must have been created by some "designer." It is the "must have been created" part that makes is fundamentally creationist. Well, to be sure, while intelligent design theory is a theory meant to compete with evolutionary theory (what you've just outlined), what the original poster has said isn't necessarily intelligent design theory. They seem to have in mind the fine-tuning argument, roughly speaking that the order/structure of the universe suggests that the universe was designed to be that way. This argument doesn't compete with any scientific theories (except perhaps the multiverse theory, though my sense is that this is a contentious theory among scientists and atheist philosophers alike). But yes, this argument too suggests creationism. Creationism is part and parcel of theism, though---your original comment seemed to imply that creationism is something obviously silly (as in, silly in a way in which theism is not)? Or am I just not reading you right?
JR1427 3y ago
Thank for your comments. I'll try to respond to some of them, just for interest, but bear in mind I'm not trying to convince you of anything, so please just take them as intended - a hopefully friendly and stimulating exchange of points of view. > I'm not sure that what you describe as "reasons" actually qualify as reasons. I'm assuming you don't believe in God, so I'd be surprised if you did think my reasons qualified as reasons! But they do for me. I wasn't trying to put forward my best arguments in order to try and convince someone. > This is a variant of a common creationist argument, often promoted by those who prefer the term "intelligent design" to "creationism." But so-called "intelligent design" is just a variant of hard-core creationism. I'm not exactly sure what your point is. To be clear, I don't think that God made things with a wave of a wand. There seems to be good evidence for the physical mechanism for the creation of lots of things. I think these mechanisms might be thought of as the tools of whoever created (and presumably architects) the universe. But who knows, I'm just speculating. To be honest, the details of the mechanism of creation don't seem very important to me right now. > This conflates two very different senses of the words "feel" and "feelings." Hunger is a biological sensation; your "feeling" that there is a God is not and is a very, very different kind of "feeling." Assuming you are an atheist, then I'm surprised you think there is any kind of feeling _other_ than biological ones. What type of feeling is my sense that there is a God, if not biological? Personally I have no clear opinion on what the origins of this feeling are, but all I know is I have it. > Consider this: if you had been left alone on a desert island as a child ... But you almost certainly would not have the "feeling" you have now that there is a God I don't know if there is any evidence to back this up, but I'd be interested to hear it. > and even if you did, that God would even more certainly not have the characteristics you ascribe to it now. I don't think I really ascribed any characteristics to God. But I do think it's interesting that different and unconnected people across the world, and through time, very often come to the conclusion that something/someone created the universe. > This is not really even intelligible. "I feel like there is a God, so I go and eat." was meant as a metaphor. People often say they "hunger" for things that are not food. Similarly, if one believes that there is a God to hunger for, then God is the food, and to accept this is to eat from God.

knightoffaith 3y ago

>This is a variant of a common creationist argument, often promoted by those who prefer the term "intelligent design" to "creationism." But so-called "intelligent design" is just a variant of hard-core creationism. Are you implying that belief that the universe was intelligently designed necessarily implies belief that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, among other beliefs? That doesn't seem right.

f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
No, not implying that. These are not my terms, but I would call the 6000 years ago stuff "young earth creationism," distinct from several kinds of "old earth creationism." My point was just that proponents of so-called "intelligent design" sometimes try to create the impression that it is not itself a form of creationism, but it very much is. Not exactly the same as young earth creationism or any of the old earth variants, but still very much creationism nonetheless. The basic idea as I understand it is that life exhibits "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved naturally, and therefore must have been created by some "designer." It is the "must have been created" part that makes is fundamentally creationist.
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  >My point was just that proponents of so-called "intelligent design" sometimes try to create the impression that it is not itself a form of creationism, but it very much is. Not exactly the same as young earth creationism or any of the old earth variants, but still very much creationism nonetheless. Ah, I see, yes, it does seem to me that most if not all intelligent design proponents are creationists (usually I see creationism being used to refer to young earth creationism). I don't know of intelligent design proponents who deny creationism, that's interesting. >The basic idea as I understand it is that life exhibits "irreducible complexity" that could not have evolved naturally, and therefore must have been created by some "designer." It is the "must have been created" part that makes is fundamentally creationist. Well, to be sure, while intelligent design theory is a theory meant to compete with evolutionary theory (what you've just outlined), what the original poster has said isn't necessarily intelligent design theory. They seem to have in mind the fine-tuning argument, roughly speaking that the order/structure of the universe suggests that the universe was designed to be that way. This argument doesn't compete with any scientific theories (except perhaps the multiverse theory, though my sense is that this is a contentious theory among scientists and atheist philosophers alike). But yes, this argument too suggests creationism. Creationism is part and parcel of theism, though---your original comment seemed to imply that creationism is something obviously silly (as in, silly in a way in which theism is not)? Or am I just not reading you right?

JR1427 3y ago

Thank for your comments. I'll try to respond to some of them, just for interest, but bear in mind I'm not trying to convince you of anything, so please just take them as intended - a hopefully friendly and stimulating exchange of points of view. > I'm not sure that what you describe as "reasons" actually qualify as reasons. I'm assuming you don't believe in God, so I'd be surprised if you did think my reasons qualified as reasons! But they do for me. I wasn't trying to put forward my best arguments in order to try and convince someone. > This is a variant of a common creationist argument, often promoted by those who prefer the term "intelligent design" to "creationism." But so-called "intelligent design" is just a variant of hard-core creationism. I'm not exactly sure what your point is. To be clear, I don't think that God made things with a wave of a wand. There seems to be good evidence for the physical mechanism for the creation of lots of things. I think these mechanisms might be thought of as the tools of whoever created (and presumably architects) the universe. But who knows, I'm just speculating. To be honest, the details of the mechanism of creation don't seem very important to me right now. > This conflates two very different senses of the words "feel" and "feelings." Hunger is a biological sensation; your "feeling" that there is a God is not and is a very, very different kind of "feeling." Assuming you are an atheist, then I'm surprised you think there is any kind of feeling _other_ than biological ones. What type of feeling is my sense that there is a God, if not biological? Personally I have no clear opinion on what the origins of this feeling are, but all I know is I have it. > Consider this: if you had been left alone on a desert island as a child ... But you almost certainly would not have the "feeling" you have now that there is a God I don't know if there is any evidence to back this up, but I'd be interested to hear it. > and even if you did, that God would even more certainly not have the characteristics you ascribe to it now. I don't think I really ascribed any characteristics to God. But I do think it's interesting that different and unconnected people across the world, and through time, very often come to the conclusion that something/someone created the universe. > This is not really even intelligible. "I feel like there is a God, so I go and eat." was meant as a metaphor. People often say they "hunger" for things that are not food. Similarly, if one believes that there is a God to hunger for, then God is the food, and to accept this is to eat from God.