By going to church every Sunday and praying/reading the Bible every night before you go to bed. .
This describes acts one traditionally associates with worship. If "worship" refers to something more than an act though, perhaps acts of worship might also have a wider variety.
For instance, Paul told us to "pray without ceasing". Is it possible he thought of prayer as something more than the actions commonly called "prayer", or was he merely being hyperbolic? Can our lives be a prayer, and if so, what would that look like?
But you don't sleep in heaven because it's always day time, so you worship God 24/7.
I assume you are refering to a description in the Revelation. I will suggest that visions often describe things in terms the recipient will profoundly understand rather than presenting things as a literal depiction.
An example I often cite is of a woman who had a life-altering vision of a blue Jesus.
"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."
"And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there."
"And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."
Does God abolish the literal darkness of night by altering the course of countless suns, or is the change among His people?
Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the son of man has no place to lay his head.
But I won't tell you that much more about it because heaven is so much more awesome. Because you get to worship me. All. The. Time. But you'll be really happy at the same time.
How does one worship the Almighty in this world? Then, how does one worship Him in heaven?
I thought the atheist "existence by chance" was predicated on extremely long periods of time producing inevitability. Perhaps I misunderstand the atheist arguement?
It's not foolish to suspect a sentient entity might be creative. But the argument you're making begs the question by presupposing that the sentient entity exists. Formally, you're reversing the events in the probability expression: you're talking about P(U|G), the probability of the universe given God, rather than P(G|U), the probability of God given the universe. It would be formally parallel for you to have said that Zeus is an angry and capricious storm-deity, and therefore it is not foolish to suspect that he might periodically destroy stuff with storms. P(S|Z), the probability of storms given Zeus, is high. But this says nothing about P(Z|S), the probability of Zeus given storms, which I think we can agree is very low. (Or for a more mundane example of the error, consider the difference between P(J|W), the probability that a randomly selected person is Angelina Jolie given that they're a woman, i.e. one in about three and a half billion, and P(W|J), the probability that a randomly selected person is a woman given that they're Angelina Jolie, i.e. 100%.)
You are also presupposing that the universe was generated through a creative process. It would admittedly be strange for the universe to be generated through a creative process without there being a creative mind behind it. But we have no indication that this is the case. In fact, lots of things are created without being creative. An elephant, for instance, often creates large piles of elephant dung, and I doubt it puts much thought into the process. Why should we suppose that the universe is more akin to a human artifact than to dung? There is in dung a rich variety of complicated structures, and it supports all kinds of living things (which as far as universe-analogues are concerned puts it way ahead of our own sterile inventions). So maybe both mind and proboscis are irrelevant to the origin of the universe. Maybe we should be looking for an infinite gastrointestinal tract.
I presupposed an entity as your contingency did. "If a creation was born of an entity, it is as likely to be non-sentient, have an elephant trunk and poop out creation as it is be sentient and intentionally create it." Note that the pooping nonsentient entity here is essentially the "something out of nothing" argument.
As to this second point, that I did not mean to imply that creation is contingent on intention, rather that it is likely a sentient being might incline to be creative. I agree, creation can occur without planning.
To clarify, I am not advocating "intelligent design" theologies.
"A sentient force created the universe" does not offer just a single possibility and is more likely than any particular religious representation.
Granted. But this trivial fact of logic papers over the more significant fact that sentience by itself is hugely specific. Look around - how many different things are sentient? Just human beings. Stars aren't sentient. Black holes aren't sentient. Interstellar hydrogen isn't sentient. Rocks aren't sentient. In all the vastness of the universe, we find sentience in just one environment: a particular variety of the collection of complex self-replicating organic chemical patterns that cake just the very surface of a certain liquid-water terrestrial planet.
Even as far as life on Earth is concerned, sentience is unique. There's been life here for over three billion years and multicellular life for a billion. Multicellularity has evolved independently at least 25 times; complex eyes, up to a hundred; powered flight, four times (and gliding many more); defensive mechanisms like thorns and shells, tens of thousands of times. But it has taken all those aeons for sentience to evolve even once. There was nothing easy about it and nothing inevitable about it. If a meteor had hit central Africa five million years ago and wiped out the great apes, there's no reason to believe that it would not have taken another billion years for the same sort of hyper-complex brain to find its way down the path to sophisticated insight, foresight, and language - if it ever happened at all.
So, though I cannot outright disprove the claim that a sentient being created the universe, I can regard it with the same incredulity that anyone would give the claim that the universe was created by a being with a five-foot flexible proboscis or an enzyme that can digest nylon or any other specific feature of a specific organism adapted to a specific purpose on this planet.
But that's the rub with infinity... If we truly want to mark things with chance, you have to admit the odds take an odd turn. I've heard atheists contend that infinity means that infinite versions of oneself must exist.
After all, the odds the vast non-sentient universes coming into existence from nothing cannot even be comprehended. Atheism asserts this is the most likely possibility. Meanwhile, religion accommodates existence without beginning, and the infinite so large that repetition need not occur.
Moreover, the qualities you compare to sentience do not entirely correlate because sentience generates ideas. While a creator with an elephant trunk might exist, having that trunk does not inherently tilt it towards creativity. By our observations, our sentience impels creation. While this will undoubtedly be cited an anthropomorphism, is it foolish to suspect an infinite sentience might also create?
Let's take another proposition for which no evidence one way or the other seems to be forthcoming: "Eleanor of Aquitaine owned a red qipao." How would you approach this? Would you assign it the same level of confidence that you would its contradiction, "Eleanor of Aquitaine did not own a red qipao"? Probably not. First of all, what we know about qipaos seems to indicate that they are 19th-Century Chinese garments, and thus it seems doubtful that we would find one in a 12th-Century European context. Similarly, what we know about consciousness seems to indicate that it is an evolved feature of biological life, and thus it seems doubtful in a cosmic creation context.
But maybe our information on qipaos is wrong, or incomplete. Maybe they're more universal than we think. Even then, we can consider the specificity of the proposition. Of all the things Eleanor could own, "Eleanor owned a red qipao" covers just a single possibility, whereas "Eleanor did not own a red qipao" covers all the rest. Similarly, "A consciousness created the universe" covers just a single possibility whereas "A consciousness did not create the universe" covers all the rest. Any particular random factual claim about a thing, in the absence of any reason to suggest it, is far more likely to be wrong than right. Thus its negation is far more likely to be right than wrong. So it would be unreasonable of us to assign equal levels of confidence to atheism and deism. We can't be absolutely certain, but we can be pretty confident that atheism is the correct theory.
As we've discussed before, the specificity in your examples might lead a reader to equate the odds between them.
"A sentient force created the universe" does not offer just a single possibility and is more likely than any particular religious representation. I am not stating that this possibility is more likely than "a non-sentient force created the universe"; Were I to passively equate "Eleanor owned a red piece of clothing", I would certainly be overstating the odds.
People interested in Commie Box often request deck lists to get started. This is roughly based on what I added to my own box from THS, which is now around 15,000 cards.
(seeing as Bestow requires a creature and if I recall correctly your opponent can still blast your target and the aura doesn't become "de-attached" and will move to graveyard - so risk is also involved in playing as Bestow).
I couldn't swear to it, but I believe this is incorrect.
@ Blinking Spirit: Thanks, that makes sense. I have learned a great deal from this conversation. I appreciate you taking time to explain these things to me. My view of Pascal's Wager has certainly changed. I think you are correct.
So, I think I've been wrong on what you were saying a few times so far in this thread. Are you conceding that Pascal's Wager doesn't work?
I don't think it works well due to its narrow scope, but gets progressively more intriguing as it is generalized. Mainly, I was reacting to the idea that "all religious ideas are equally stupid," which I'm honestly not sure was what BS meant. (?)
@ IceCreamMan, I think those are great points, but they deal with the results of the search. In this thread, I've been discussing whether a search for a Creator is useful. I have no argument with your experiences.
Did I take leaps to "search for the Creator"? Surely I did not account for all the possibilities, especially in my youth. Does that mean I should retract the results I believe I have found? Given how many aspects of my basic religious concepts have been revised and refined, I know I am not adverse to change. Yet there are experiences I will not abandon.
A void of evidence DOES usher in confusion. If there's no evidence on a subject, then virtually all statements on the truth value of that subject are unfounded. An absurd invented theology DOES have as much likelihood of being correct as the absurd invented theologies of desert tribesmen in the middle east 2000 years ago, no matter how many people have been suckered by them.
And that's the point. When you say...
Therefore, I am forced to make choices independent of mathematical odds. It comes down to "no possible yield" or "possible yield". I decided it wise to seek that Creator.
...you've made the mistake of posing a false dichotomy. "There is a Creator; for seeking him I get infinite rewards" and "There is no Creator; I get neither rewards nor punishments" are not the only two options with potentially equal chances of being correct. There's also, "There is a Creator who didn't wish for me to seek him; I get infinite punishment." If you want to decide between them, you need a razor to use for making the decision. If you're going to use "I feel this to be true" as a razor, well, go ahead - I haven't got a great way to prove that to be a bad razor, but you have to see that it's a completely useless argument to convert someone who doesn't already feel it to be true. If you want to try to use "The odds are against it" as a razor, you have to stop making choices independent of mathematical odds and start actually figuring out what the mathematical odds are. And you have to do that exercise fully prepared to discover that the mathematical odds might go against what you feel to be true.
I agree. However, when it comes to banking, I was personally not content to wager on "not seeking". I did not see seeking as a threat to anything I valued. And I realize saying this will not be worth much as a testimony, but it in fact moderated my tendencies.
My use of probability was intended to question BS's assertion. I agree, I cannot use probability to justify my Christian leanings; They were a result rather than a destination on a map.
In religion, due to lack of evidence, measurements and odds, I would argue that motive is of utmost importance. Stripping down one's intent is akin to a scientist scrubbing a beaker of potential contaminants. I actually think that "I feel X" is a big red flag.
My contention has been that Pascal's wager can be generalized to a more "it may behoove one to seek a creator(s)". We cannot be certain what stakes are riding on it, but the potential outcomes at least warrant thought.
What outcomes would those be? And why do you assign them the probability you do? And if you say you're not assigning them probability - by taking them seriously enough to pursue you're implicitly assigning them at least a fairly high probability. You don't play the lottery unless you think (erroneously) that you've got a shot at winning.
You claimed that an absurd invented theology had equal validity to Pascal's argument. The illogical follow-through that I thought you were claiming was that any invented idea had equal merit to any religious idea, which as I explained above, doesn't make sense, even if we eschew historical evidence. I may have misunderstood?
As for the invention argument, I thought that's what we were discussing? As I said, evidence is a symptom of reality, not a determinant.
Do we use a void of evidence to allow us to usher in confusion and random equivalence? How do we weigh our desire for self-justification?
As you aptly point out, there is not enough evidence regarding the sentience of the Creator to adequately assign odds. Moreover, I don't expect any time in my life that we will have enough evidence to do so. Therefore, I am forced to make choices independent of mathematical odds. It comes down to "no possible yield" or "possible yield". I decided it wise to seek that Creator.
Science and religion have extremely different purposes. While taking the "Fair Witness" approach is of value to science, I don't think it needs to be an entire way of life. It don't think it must cost us the liberty to seek the Creator(s) in other ways. If it does, aren't we giving it liturgical weight?
In all the examples you give, one claim is subordinate to another. If there is a pink unicorn called Fred that created the universe, there is necessarily a creator, and so you might with good reason say that the latter claim is more likely. Contrast Blinking Spirit's comparisons (banana hat versus Christianity), where neither of the claims are subordinate or superordinate to each other, and it becomes harder to say that one set of claims is broader than the other - at least not in the way you allege by your examples.
I think this is a fair statement, but it is not what BS is claiming.
Pascal's Wager crucially depends on the claim that equal lack of evidence yields equal likelihood. Once that's discarded - and I think you're right to discard it, though it's notoriously difficult to say why - Pascal's Wager has no hope of convincing anyone to believe in God.
One additional point - of course it's more likely that there is a creator than that there's a pink unicorn named fred who created the universe - because if the latter claim is true, the former is, but the former can be true without the latter being true, as you've noted. However, in order for the Wager to be sustained, it's not merely sufficient for their to be a creator. For the Wager to pay off, there must be a remarkably specific deity - meeting a particular name, description, personality, actions, etc. FAR more detailed than "a pink unicorn named Fred."
I agree. Pascal's coin is would be better represented by a roulette table of betting on black or red, odd or even, and then specific numbers.
My contention has been that Pascal's wager can be generalized to a more "it may behoove one to seek a creator(s)". We cannot be certain what stakes are riding on it, but the potential outcomes at least warrant thought.
There are several reasons people cite in this forum why they decline to search for the Creator. They see violence declared in the name of religion, they see others abandon all reason, they see bigotry, they cannot abide blind faith, etc. Unfortunately, I think these are people that would benefit the search for the Creator(s), rather than leaving it to those who readily accept these questionable aspects of religion.
I want to see more people say "**** this" and claim it as their right to search for the Creator(s), and do it earnestly.
I admit: I personally think there are stakes, but I am sadly unable to adequately offer the formulas other religious folks can cite.
Maybe BlinkingSpirit did not intend this, but the illogical follow through is "I have as much reason to believe in any given religion as any ridiculous belief I make up on the spot." This is not true, because he has the experience of creating the ridiculous belief, and knows it to be an invention.
I know it's an invention. That has no bearing on whether or not it's correct. I could have gotten it right by accident - and my chances of doing so are no different than the chances of anyone else proposing anything else for which there is absolutely no evidence.
I write in a novel that there is an alien civilization of sentient amphibianoids in the star system Zubenelgenubi. This is my invention. Are the chances of there actually being such a civilization very high? Of course not. Are they any lower because I wrote it in a novel than if I hadn't? Of course not. It's ridiculous to say, "You just made up that civilization, so it must not exist; but David Icke's followers sincerely believe in this other civilization of reptiloids from Alpha Draconis, so it's more likely to exist." One entirely speculative theory is as likely as the other. The truth of the universe is utterly indifferent to what people believe, or why they believe it. All that matters is the evidence.
Evidence is a symptom, not determinant of reality. Existence does not hinge on our ability to calculate probability. Is saying "all that matters is the evidence" how we elect ourselves to divinity?
Do you agree that probability of the existence of any given concept diminishes with specificity?
The odds of there being a Creative force is greater than there was a single Creator named Yahweh. The odds of there being a God are greater than there being a God incarnate named Jesus? The odds of a historical Jesus existing is greater than the specific version proposed by Midway Heights Baptist church?
Or in your terms:
There is a galactic civilization is more likely than there is an amphibious galactic civilization on planet Zubenelgenubi.
Saying "my specific absurd idea is equally as likely as the existence of a Creator" is delusional. Equal evidence does not yield equal likelihood. Probability is not a force on existence.
Again, our belief is not determining reality here. I am not claiming "if someone believes this, it is more likely" as people have asserted. Rather, it's not sensible to compare "there's a pink Unicorn named Fred that created the universe" to "there is a Creator." To do so is to reduce scientific intelligence to legalistic paralysis.
This describes acts one traditionally associates with worship. If "worship" refers to something more than an act though, perhaps acts of worship might also have a wider variety.
For instance, Paul told us to "pray without ceasing". Is it possible he thought of prayer as something more than the actions commonly called "prayer", or was he merely being hyperbolic? Can our lives be a prayer, and if so, what would that look like?
I assume you are refering to a description in the Revelation. I will suggest that visions often describe things in terms the recipient will profoundly understand rather than presenting things as a literal depiction.
An example I often cite is of a woman who had a life-altering vision of a blue Jesus.
Does God abolish the literal darkness of night by altering the course of countless suns, or is the change among His people?
How does one worship the Almighty in this world? Then, how does one worship Him in heaven?
I thought the atheist "existence by chance" was predicated on extremely long periods of time producing inevitability. Perhaps I misunderstand the atheist arguement?
I presupposed an entity as your contingency did. "If a creation was born of an entity, it is as likely to be non-sentient, have an elephant trunk and poop out creation as it is be sentient and intentionally create it." Note that the pooping nonsentient entity here is essentially the "something out of nothing" argument.
As to this second point, that I did not mean to imply that creation is contingent on intention, rather that it is likely a sentient being might incline to be creative. I agree, creation can occur without planning.
To clarify, I am not advocating "intelligent design" theologies.
But that's the rub with infinity... If we truly want to mark things with chance, you have to admit the odds take an odd turn. I've heard atheists contend that infinity means that infinite versions of oneself must exist.
After all, the odds the vast non-sentient universes coming into existence from nothing cannot even be comprehended. Atheism asserts this is the most likely possibility. Meanwhile, religion accommodates existence without beginning, and the infinite so large that repetition need not occur.
Moreover, the qualities you compare to sentience do not entirely correlate because sentience generates ideas. While a creator with an elephant trunk might exist, having that trunk does not inherently tilt it towards creativity. By our observations, our sentience impels creation. While this will undoubtedly be cited an anthropomorphism, is it foolish to suspect an infinite sentience might also create?
As we've discussed before, the specificity in your examples might lead a reader to equate the odds between them.
"A sentient force created the universe" does not offer just a single possibility and is more likely than any particular religious representation. I am not stating that this possibility is more likely than "a non-sentient force created the universe"; Were I to passively equate "Eleanor owned a red piece of clothing", I would certainly be overstating the odds.
WHITE DECK
BLUE DECK
BLACK DECK
RED DECK
GREEN DECK
TRAVELERS
I couldn't swear to it, but I believe this is incorrect.
We love the cartoon so much we won't even watch the movie.
I was going to say all of Star Wars minus Empire Strikes Back.
@ Mondu: Godzilla remake is on its way.
I don't think it works well due to its narrow scope, but gets progressively more intriguing as it is generalized. Mainly, I was reacting to the idea that "all religious ideas are equally stupid," which I'm honestly not sure was what BS meant. (?)
@ IceCreamMan, I think those are great points, but they deal with the results of the search. In this thread, I've been discussing whether a search for a Creator is useful. I have no argument with your experiences.
Did I take leaps to "search for the Creator"? Surely I did not account for all the possibilities, especially in my youth. Does that mean I should retract the results I believe I have found? Given how many aspects of my basic religious concepts have been revised and refined, I know I am not adverse to change. Yet there are experiences I will not abandon.
I agree. However, when it comes to banking, I was personally not content to wager on "not seeking". I did not see seeking as a threat to anything I valued. And I realize saying this will not be worth much as a testimony, but it in fact moderated my tendencies.
My use of probability was intended to question BS's assertion. I agree, I cannot use probability to justify my Christian leanings; They were a result rather than a destination on a map.
In religion, due to lack of evidence, measurements and odds, I would argue that motive is of utmost importance. Stripping down one's intent is akin to a scientist scrubbing a beaker of potential contaminants. I actually think that "I feel X" is a big red flag.
You claimed that an absurd invented theology had equal validity to Pascal's argument. The illogical follow-through that I thought you were claiming was that any invented idea had equal merit to any religious idea, which as I explained above, doesn't make sense, even if we eschew historical evidence. I may have misunderstood?
As for the invention argument, I thought that's what we were discussing? As I said, evidence is a symptom of reality, not a determinant.
Do we use a void of evidence to allow us to usher in confusion and random equivalence? How do we weigh our desire for self-justification?
As you aptly point out, there is not enough evidence regarding the sentience of the Creator to adequately assign odds. Moreover, I don't expect any time in my life that we will have enough evidence to do so. Therefore, I am forced to make choices independent of mathematical odds. It comes down to "no possible yield" or "possible yield". I decided it wise to seek that Creator.
Science and religion have extremely different purposes. While taking the "Fair Witness" approach is of value to science, I don't think it needs to be an entire way of life. It don't think it must cost us the liberty to seek the Creator(s) in other ways. If it does, aren't we giving it liturgical weight?
I think this is a fair statement, but it is not what BS is claiming.
I agree. Pascal's coin is would be better represented by a roulette table of betting on black or red, odd or even, and then specific numbers.
My contention has been that Pascal's wager can be generalized to a more "it may behoove one to seek a creator(s)". We cannot be certain what stakes are riding on it, but the potential outcomes at least warrant thought.
There are several reasons people cite in this forum why they decline to search for the Creator. They see violence declared in the name of religion, they see others abandon all reason, they see bigotry, they cannot abide blind faith, etc. Unfortunately, I think these are people that would benefit the search for the Creator(s), rather than leaving it to those who readily accept these questionable aspects of religion.
I want to see more people say "**** this" and claim it as their right to search for the Creator(s), and do it earnestly.
I admit: I personally think there are stakes, but I am sadly unable to adequately offer the formulas other religious folks can cite.
Evidence is a symptom, not determinant of reality. Existence does not hinge on our ability to calculate probability. Is saying "all that matters is the evidence" how we elect ourselves to divinity?
Do you agree that probability of the existence of any given concept diminishes with specificity?
The odds of there being a Creative force is greater than there was a single Creator named Yahweh. The odds of there being a God are greater than there being a God incarnate named Jesus? The odds of a historical Jesus existing is greater than the specific version proposed by Midway Heights Baptist church?
Or in your terms:
There is a galactic civilization is more likely than there is an amphibious galactic civilization on planet Zubenelgenubi.
Saying "my specific absurd idea is equally as likely as the existence of a Creator" is delusional. Equal evidence does not yield equal likelihood. Probability is not a force on existence.
Again, our belief is not determining reality here. I am not claiming "if someone believes this, it is more likely" as people have asserted. Rather, it's not sensible to compare "there's a pink Unicorn named Fred that created the universe" to "there is a Creator." To do so is to reduce scientific intelligence to legalistic paralysis.