Why should a deity exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 10:16 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
Hello!

Sorry to jump into unfogged's questions and answers Blush

(02-02-2017 09:56 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  Not sure what religion you've had exposure to, but I'll go out on a limb here and say that the definition that I presented is the view of the vast majority of Christians who use the term. "Supernatural" describes the SCUBA tanks on the diver - allowing the diver to function underwater, where it is not within the diver's nature to do so (hence "super" natural). That's really all there is to the term.

No No.. that's perhaps a layman's/generic term but really... there's a more nuanced meaning.

There's nothing 'Supernatural' about a SCUBA system (Or any of the plethora of other breathing systems)

Not that you've given a good, concise definition of what your ddiety actually is supposed to 'Be' but anything with powers beyond those of the physical realm are considered to be 'Super-natural'. Yes



(02-02-2017 09:56 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  "Self-preservation" is presumed within "natural selection", as the creature exhibiting a proclivity for self-destruction is now extinct.

No Again self preservation only works for the individual. If enough individuals develop said trait then, yes, the species might become extinct but the ''closeness' of individuals within a species is just one of the myriad of factors surrounding survival of a species.

Heck, depending on selection pressures positive self species antipathy might actually develop within an animal type!

(02-02-2017 09:56 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  That's not what I intended to say. What I would like to say is that a creature with a proclivity for self-destruction is likely assured extinction, as natural selection would tend to favor a creature which exhibits the predilection of self-preservation.

Again... what an individual does isn't really what the 'Species' is about. As has been pointed out before an individual's single behaviors might, indeed, be completely suicidal. But if it allows a large proportion of the rest of the species to survive? Then such behavior, again, might actively be naturally selected for.

*Note: There is a species of desert dwelling ant. Upon returning to the nest the very last ant checks the surrounding area. Picks up a rock and seals the entrance to the nest. This keeps the interior's cool through out the day and the nest survives. The lone, last ant? They perish under the day's sun.

Sadcryface

(02-02-2017 09:56 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  I fall back to the idea of domesticated animals resulting from selective breeding as being "existence by design". All i need to establish this is the observation that I do not observe packs of Boston Terriers competing with the Lions and Cheetahs for Gazelle on the African Plains (although that would be cool to see if someone can point me to You-tube URL).


No Again, your poor analogy is.. poor. Perhaps you might work up a better understanding of the biology?Thumbsup

(02-02-2017 09:56 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  Symbiosis might be something for me to investigate, for example, because it suggests the extreme odds of two mutually evolving creatures - but I have yet to have an atheist point this out to me as serving the atheist point.

Yes I, too, hope some one posts a really naffy Youtube linky about the evolution of Symbiosis. Thumbsup

On a similar vein... How then does you deific view square away 'Parasitism'? Consider

I'm sure Unfogged will do a MUCH better job of explaining all the above points. Blush
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
02-02-2017, 10:23 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 09:20 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  Or perhaps you can point me to an archeological finding of a hominid that was not Man, but exhibiting "religion". I will gladly consider these.

Homo neanderthalensis appears to have practiced religion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
02-02-2017, 10:30 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 09:47 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  The current jumbled mess of different 'Faiths' have nothing along the time lines like that of the ancient Egyptians and a few other cultures, but nice try. Thumbsup
I put the relevance timeline of Ancient Egyptian Polytheism at just over 3,000 years. Judaism is at 4,500 years right now, and still on-going.

Perhaps you have different data you can share.

(02-02-2017 09:47 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Um.. you've lost me with this one I'm sorry.

I was saying that the 'rationality' that you're so fond of is something that has not been with our species for very long. Simple as that.
10,000 years, perhaps? 100,000 years? What's your data here?

(02-02-2017 09:47 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  That there were other hominids along side those of our ancestors is what I was pointing out to demonstrate that even as hominids we're not that 'special'.Jjust the last, current ones
I think "last" and "current" has some intrinsic value in a discussion about natural selection that resulted in a rational capacity which includes religious faith. It took billions of years for us to arrive at this point, and conjecture as to what survives a billion years from now is irrelevant. I simply note that we are creatures capable of modifying our environs to suit us in a magnitude not exhibited by other creatures, and that this same rationality also practices religion. These are facts.

(02-02-2017 09:47 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Consider I'm... again not sure where you're going with this. You see to have completely missed my use of the word 'Hominid' and plastered in and confused yourself with using "Ape".

Now, yes we are 'Apes'.. but that's just one level of the classification.

As for your "There's soulless animal hominids and enlightened homo-sapiens" comment? No
This is either misunderstanding on your part, or poor communications on mine. "Soul" as a term for me is 'that which animates". Apes have souls. Trees don't.

I am simply pointing out that the rational capacity I think I have observed in Apes is not the rational capacity that practices religion. Having made that statement, i am open to someone pointing me to a scientific study that refutes that statement.

(02-02-2017 09:47 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You're conflating 'rational' with 'belief' (While sliding away from actually explaining your deity, btw)

I acknowledge that a person can be both rational and hold beliefs. Yes

But they (The words and meanings) are definitely not the same.
You seem to be trying to anticipate a direction here. Don't. I'm not conflating "rational" with "belief", I am asserting the observed coincidence.

As to where I am "sliding" - I think I get to make my points my way. I appreciate the dialogue, and yes, I'm headed to my understanding of faith, and my understanding of God, for your consideration. There is nothing I've offered here that is "my way or the highway". I am a person of faith, and I have come to this point by way of considering the evidence that I believe exists. The title of this thread is "Why should a deity exist?" and that's where I am headed. But it would be pointless just to come out and say "God exists, and you guys are wrong". I'm sure you get that here all the time. I presume from my identification as a person of faith 50 posts ago, and the continued dialogue, that there is some level of interest in "faith" and how in the world someone could come to possess this.

The fact that someone labels "atheist' is compelling to me. Almost as a challenge. The expression I associate with certitude is apathy regarding a label. I label "Christian" and one of the objectives of "Christian" is to evangelize to the "faithless". So what is the purpose of labeling 'faithless", if you aren't inviting "evangelization"? Is it "status"? "Identity"?

(02-02-2017 09:47 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  So, you keep presenting your information and others here on the forum simply keep pointing out that they have nothing to actually do with anything 'rational'.

Please, where other than 'The feels' is any evidence for any deity?
In a similar manner to not identifying a definition for this "God' that atheists reject (as I too reject a Rainbow-Farting Blue CareBear riding a pink unicorn), it would seem that the definition of "Rationality" also could use some work.

If you would like to see how I am using a term in this type of discussion, consider:

http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/350/aqglhapp.htm

as a reference. That way, I don't have to go back through everything I post and supply classical definitions of these terms as they relate to a discussion of belief and truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 10:31 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 10:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  Homo neanderthalensis appears to have practiced religion.
Got a link to an article? Thanks kindly, in advance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 10:31 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 09:56 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 08:58 AM)unfogged Wrote:  We'll add "supernatural" to the list of words that you have unique definitions for.
Not sure what religion you've had exposure to, but I'll go out on a limb here and say that the definition that I presented is the view of the vast majority of Christians who use the term. "Supernatural" describes the SCUBA tanks on the diver - allowing the diver to function underwater, where it is not within the diver's nature to do so (hence "super" natural). That's really all there is to the term.

(02-02-2017 08:58 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Self-preservation is only one factor. Within social species the willingness of individuals to sacrifice for others is of benefit to the species as a whole. There is nothing "supernatural" about it because it is fully understandable within the natural world.
"Self-preservation" is presumed within "natural selection", as the creature exhibiting a proclivity for self-destruction is now extinct.

(02-02-2017 08:58 AM)unfogged Wrote:  First, your example is still based on the idea that any action that doesn't directly benefit the individual is not wholly rational. That is a very limited, dystopian view that does not match reality in my experience.
That's not what i intended to say. What I would like to say is that a creature with a proclivity for self-destruction is likely assured extinction, as natural selection would tend to favor a creature which exhibits the predilection of self-preservation.

(02-02-2017 08:58 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Second, the benefit of rationality is that it allows you to align your decisions to accord with reality. That allows you to make better decisions to enhance what you find to be of value and that may mean some self-sacrifice if you value things other than yourself.

Rationality turns out to be a useful tool and we assign it the purpose of helping us thrive. I don't know if it has a designed purpose because, as far as I can see, it has no intentional designer.
I fall back to the idea of domesticated animals resulting from selective breeding as being "existence by design". All i need to establish this is the observation that I do not observe packs of Boston Terriers competing with the Lions and Cheetahs for Gazelle on the African Plains (although that would be cool to see if someone can point me to You-tube URL). Symbiosis might be something for me to investigate, for example, because it suggests the extreme odds of two mutually evolving creatures - but I have yet to have an atheist point this out to me as serving the atheist point.

There are other examples of "purpose" that I believe I observe, and while this has been "refuted", no articles, studies or links were provided. So, as of now, I remain unmoved.

The natural world not evidence of intentional design. Planets orbit due to gravity, day and night exist for planets that rotate, stars shine from nuclear fusion.
Living things are the product of evolution by natural selection.
Natural selection is a mindless, purposeless algorithm comprising imperfect replication and differential reproductive success. From that, change is inevitable.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 10:32 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 10:31 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 10:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  Homo neanderthalensis appears to have practiced religion.
Got a link to an article? Thanks kindly, in advance.

Do you even Google®?

Paleolithic religion

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 10:44 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 10:16 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello!

Sorry to jump into unfogged's questions and answers Blush

No No.. that's perhaps a layman's/generic term but really... there's a more nuanced meaning.

There's nothing 'Supernatural' about a SCUBA system (Or any of the plethora of other breathing systems)
This is simply what the term means - to equip a human for something with which they are not naturally equipped.

If you would like to nominate a different word that I may use for "equipping a human for that which they are not naturally equipped", then offer it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 10:45 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 10:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  Do you even Google®?

Paleolithic religion
Lol...yes, but generally to support my points, not yours. I'll have a look at your link, thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 10:52 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 10:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  The natural world not evidence of intentional design. Planets orbit due to gravity, day and night exist for planets that rotate, stars shine from nuclear fusion.
Living things are the product of evolution by natural selection.
Natural selection is a mindless, purposeless algorithm comprising imperfect replication and differential reproductive success. From that, change is inevitable.
Are the following true?

• Humans are the product of natural selection, having evolved from other organisms

• Gravity exists and behaves as it does for the entirety of this evolutionary process that has resulted in humans

"Algorithm" suggests a purpose, purpose suggests a design, and design suggests intelligence. So I sense incongruence between "purposeless" and "algorithm". If natural selection is an enhanced form of random occurrence, then it can't be an algorithm.

I concede its merely semantics, but I'd like to more fully understand your thinking behind the "order" of natural selection, resulting in a narrowing of the permutations and combinations of "random chance", as opposed to the series of random occurrences, which resulted in an environment, from which :natural order' became a mechanism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 10:54 AM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2017 11:03 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 10:30 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  I put the relevance timeline of Ancient Egyptian Polytheism at just over 3,000 years. Judaism is at 4,500 years right now, and still on-going.

Perhaps you have different data you can share.

Am sure some one about the forum might point out who's got the longer religion than whom. Tongue

Also, you're not actually Jweish, are you?

No conflating your beliefes by highjacking others.

heck, you start doing that and you'll be bolting your version of religion onto the Buddhists and Animists. Tongue

(02-02-2017 10:30 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  10,000 years, perhaps? 100,000 years? What's your data here?

So, the information that Hominid evolution in gneral goes back a few million years thence that you've got a few hundred thousand years or so of homo-sapien development loooong before you even get to hunter gatherers. Which, as others have pointed out, though out this development we shared the planet with lots of other hominids.. Neanderthal, Hobitsflorensis (Possibly) being just two of the top of my head. There's a couple of others who's names escape me atm.

(02-02-2017 10:30 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  I think "last" and "current" has some intrinsic value in a discussion about natural selection that resulted in a rational capacity which includes religious faith. It took billions of years for us to arrive at this point, and conjecture as to what survives a billion years from now is irrelevant. I simply note that we are creatures capable of modifying our environs to suit us in a magnitude not exhibited by other creatures, and that this same rationality also practices religion. These are facts.

They are also disjointed and anthropomorphic.

Lots of other animal also change their environment to suit themselves. That we're 'better' at it is, again, something I'm hypothesizing as a happy accident along side out pattern recognition and rock throwing.

This, still, does nothing towards moving the conversation in the direction of any sort of diety.

(02-02-2017 10:30 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  This is either misunderstanding on your part, or poor communications on mine. "Soul" as a term for me is 'that which animates". Apes have souls. Trees don't.

Okay, what's a soul and how do you determin wher/what it is? Consider

(02-02-2017 10:30 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  I am simply pointing out that the rational capacity I think I have observed in Apes is not the rational capacity that practices religion. Having made that statement, i am open to someone pointing me to a scientific study that refutes that statement.

Actually.. I'm pretty sure there was an article in a current 'New Scientist' magazine (Yes, that's the 'Height' of my reading Blush ) about Chimps observing something akin to 'Religion'. Maybe some one else has a quicker link off the mark?

(02-02-2017 10:30 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  You seem to be trying to anticipate a direction here. Don't. I'm not conflating "rational" with "belief", I am asserting the observed coincidence.

Nope, I'm not trying to lead anything any where. But I'm also trying to be as concise in my replies to yourself as I can be and as focused and on pint as well.

I hope I'm doing so admirably.

"I am asserting the observed coincidence."

Okay, 'Coincidence'? You see patterns? So? Humans are noted for their pattern recognition skills. There's also the known fact that this also leads to many and often 'false positives' in that we see patterns where there are none all the time.

(02-02-2017 10:30 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  As to where I am "sliding" - I think I get to make my points my way. I appreciate the dialogue, and yes, I'm headed to my understanding of faith, and my understanding of God, for your consideration. There is nothing I've offered here that is "my way or the highway". I am a person of faith, and I have come to this point by way of considering the evidence that I believe exists. The title of this thread is "Why should a deity exist?" and that's where I am headed. But it would be pointless just to come out and say "God exists, and you guys are wrong". I'm sure you get that here all the time. I presume from my identification as a person of faith 50 posts ago, and the continued dialogue, that there is some level of interest in "faith" and how in the world someone could come to possess this.

Yah, I get it. but you can try the 'simple' side of things first and just say:

"I think the evidence/etc for deity is this!" (Ta-DAAA! Optional. Wink )

(02-02-2017 10:30 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  The fact that someone labels "atheist' is compelling to me. Almost as a challenge. The expression I associate with certitude is apathy regarding a label. I label "Christian" and one of the objectives of "Christian" is to evangelize to the "faithless". So what is the purpose of labeling 'faithless", if you aren't inviting "evangelization"? Is it "status"? "Identity"?

I 'label' as "Non-theist" specifically because I find said word a better descriptor of my current mental state.

(02-02-2017 10:30 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  In a similar manner to not identifying a definition for this "God' that atheists reject (as I too reject a Rainbow-Farting Blue CareBear riding a pink unicorn), it would seem that the definition of "Rationality" also could use some work.

Fine... I'm happy with my layman's understanding of the word/meaning of 'Rationality' and am comfortable enough to use it reasonably well in a sentence.

Of course, if I am stuffing up its use, please let me know. Thumbsup

(02-02-2017 10:30 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  If you would like to see how I am using a term in this type of discussion, consider:

http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/350/aqglhapp.htm

as a reference. That way, I don't have to go back through everything I post and supply classical definitions of these terms as they relate to a discussion of belief and truth.

Cool, no worries. Big Grin

Yeah, read the link. Okay... new definition to learn to use.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: