[Poelmo]

There is no such thing as "faith with certainty". The two terms are mutually exclusive.

I meant faith without doubt.

As for making up your own religion....You can do that but then you know for certain that it is a human construction and is almost certainly baseless. You can not do that with the world's religions. You have no proof either way which is the nature of faith.

No its not. That is irrational. What is rational is to assume that you don't know.

It's rational to go with the most probable possibility.

You need to stop worrying about religion which is the way people band together to express their faith in God and start worrying about your direct relationship to God. Perhaps a religion can help you find that and perhaps it can not. But as for you seeking a relationship with God, then that is between the two of you and the ball is in your court.

How did you come to the conclusion there's a caring god instead of a pantheon or a spirit real or some force that does not care about the intricacies of human affairs and desires no relation with human beings or there not being higher entities or forces at all, just the consciousness of self aware beings and a lot of freaky laws of physics that together create something like a buddhist universe?

[Drlee]

I meant faith without doubt.

There is no such thing. The very nature of faith requires an element of doubt. Otherwise it not faith but science.

How did you come to the conclusion there's a caring god instead of a pantheon or a spirit real or some force that does not care about the intricacies of human affairs and desires no relation with human beings or there not being higher entities or forces at all, just the consciousness of self aware beings and a lot of freaky laws of physics that together create something like a buddhist universe?

I was raised with the belief. I am a typical person at the most recent end of a something like 5000 year Judeo Christian tradition. (2000 Christian) Think about that. For 2000 years people have received enough from Christianity to keep it going strong.

I flirted with Eastern Religions and atheism. Just about every young person does. In the end I asked my self what it was in which I wanted to place my faith. Christianity was it for me. I want to keep reminding you. I did not come to the conclusion that there is a caring God. I have faith that there is. Conclusion is the end. Faith is the beginning.

I could talk about my personal experience of my relationship with God but not on this forum. There are far too many people here who are far to immature to handle a discussion like that without resorting to open personal insult (which is allowed on this forum when it is directed at a Christian) or simply childish potty jokes. I have no desire to engage in another zombie Jesus thread with the children.

IF you really want to explore a personal relationship with God then you have to do two things first. You have to understand the nature of faith versus proof and accept it as a common and viable practice. Then you have to ask yourself what it is that you want from your God. Since most people who have ever lived have chosen to give their God great power you can ask a lot. Just remember. You are not testing a hypothesis. You are beginning a spiritual journey.

As you journey progresses you will have personal experiences that either confirm that you are made more happy and even to some slight degree more convinced by it or you won't. Sadly every religious person must come to grips with the fact that though most of us believe that God answers all prayer, sometimes he says no.

Until you have done this all you can do is stand on the sidelines and throw stones. You can do this by relying on scientific inference. (?) I certainly would not tell you that it would be unreasonable to do that. That is what Someone5 is doing. But you can't claim to have any personal notion of what it is that religious people experience until you have really tried to experience it. As an adult. (I have to say that lest someone think that "growing up Catholic" has anything to do with an adult's spiritual experiences or search. Many atheists begin their arguments with "I was raised a Christian and that is how I know.....". They know nothing. Their assertion is irrelevant to a discussion of adult spirituality.

I will tell you this which might help. There are a great many people who are made more happy with spoon-fed beliefs. They really don't care to do the hard work of testing the limits of their faith. You know tons of them. Fundamentalists of every shade are usually this way. Fundamentalism is an easy place to start. If it trips your trigger and moves you to do what God wants then fine. My suspicion is that you would find it appalling as I sometimes do. There are smart religious people you know. Always have been.

[Someone5]

With whom do you wish to argue?

Someone interested in having a discussion about the first cause argument. Which apparently isn't you.

Yet again we have another atheist who believes that they can argue religious people out of religion by trying a scientific argument.

You do not know what I am thinking; do not presume you can read minds. I don't particularly care what you believe; I am participating in this because I like discussing logical arguments. The first cause argument happens to be flawed--deeply so--because it rests on a problematic assumption regarding causality.

Here is what is wrong with your argument. You seem to believe that religious people see God as the cause of the universe (creator) ((and many do)) but that their definition of God relies on that.

Not so. The first cause argument specifically proposes that god created the universe; that because the universe exists, it must have had a cause, and that cause can be called god. I pointed out that this assumption is incorrect (for a number of reasons). Not only can we not assume that everything has a cause, we can't even assume that it is possible for a cause of the universe to be first, because of the way in which time relates to causality.

The first cause argument very specifically proposes that god is the creator of the universe. Please don't derail this thread by changing the subject to your own personal beliefs about god.

For religious people the creation story has little to do with their beliefs. It is just a history question. Mostly irrelevant but at best a curiosity. But the answer you will get from the vast majority of religious people is that it is a matter of faith. From those scientifically inclined you will simply get the comment that it is a mystery.

I agree that religious belief is a matter of faith. It is why I question the utility of these logical propositions; what's the point in trying to logically defend a belief in god when it is clearly not logical and is purely a matter of faith? There's no intellectual reason to believe in god, so why bother trying to appeal to intellectual natures? The whole exercise strikes me as rather pointless... unless someone genuinely thinks that the logical argument they make is correct and a valid reason to believe.

Note; I don't usually participate in threads about faith. I participate in religious threads when people attempt to make logical arguments--or attempt to "scientifically prove" the existence of god. I have no particular need to debate people about their wishful thinking. It's as useless as shouting at a brick wall.

This thread, however, was about a specific logical argument. And until you inquired about my own beliefs, I confined my statements to a dissection of that logical argument. Your claims and assertions about my character or intentions are wildly out of place considering the comment to which you are replying. Not only do you lack sufficient evidence to support your claims, but the record in this very thread stands against your assertions.

Setting aside for a moment the religious fundamentalists for whom an argument with a scientist has no appeal you are left with those religious people, like myself, whose definition of God does not rely on His creating the universe as YOU know it but rather creating the universe as I know it.

Which has... nothing to do with the subject of this thread, or the post to which you replied. The first cause argument is a known, published logical argument that attempts to set god up as the creator of the universe by defining god as that which started the universe. That logical argument is, itself, deeply dependent on god being the creator of the physical universe. That is, indeed, the very point of making the first cause argument.

If you are merely discussing your own subjective viewpoint, then please refrain from personally attacking me for misunderstanding what goes on in your head. Unlike some people, I am not claiming to read minds. I was under the impression that this thread was about the common, well-published argument generally referred to as the first cause argument. Not your own personal preferences. I will not play the shifting goal post game.

Mature Christians (and I observe many of other faiths as well) find that any attempt to 'prove' God is not only useless but diverts our attention from what we are called to do e.g. feeding the hungry, curing the ill, comforting the afflicted and such. In other words, you will probably not change the minds of mature religious people.

What on earth gave you the impression that I was trying to change anyone's mind about anything but the validity of the first cause argument? I do not care what you believe except in as much as it shapes your public behavior. I only take exception to religious beliefs when those beliefs are used to support violence or offenses against religious freedoms. If you want to go believe in sky pixies, it is none of my business.

You may use this argument to attack the beliefs of young or immature religious people.

I made a counter-argument to a specific logical argument. That is my sole interest in this thread... as one would imagine, given the subject of the thread.

Most religious people go through periods of disbelief or questioning. To the extent that you think that attacking their faith is a "good" thing to do (you will have to be responsible for your definition of good; no doubt you will whine about the inquisition or some-such nonsense) then it might be a useful weapon in your arsenal.

I do think clarity of belief is a good thing; I see no reason why it would be good for people to fool themselves into believing that their religious beliefs are rooted in physical evidence or logic. I cannot speak as to their own personal preferences or wishful delusions, but I can speak about how those beliefs relate to the real world when those beliefs are made public. I don't have any problem whatsoever with a person who is honest enough to admit that their religious belief is purely about what they wish were true.

I would point out to you that attacking the faith of immature or vulnerable people is despicable in my opinion as it could knock the emotional props out from under people who at the time need them. It is, in that event, merely an act of cruelty on your part.

Even in those conditions, there are many reasons why it would be morally correct to point out that their faith has nothing to do with reality. For example; a person can scarcely have the potential to develop a meaningful morality without that morality being founded upon reality. It could just as easily be a moment of growth for an individual as a moment of pain. Or perhaps both at the same time.

That said, I do not believe that such "immature or vulnerable people" would be participating in a thread about the first cause argument, nor be particularly upset by a logical counter-argument. Unless you are seriously going to suggest that people with weak faith routinely go around debating the merits of abstract logical arguments on the internet?

If you wish to engage with mature religious people you will have to craft an argument far more sophisticated than some nonsense about when time began.

The argument rests upon the assumption that everything has a cause; pointing out that causality depends on time is hardly an unsophisticated response. If anything the assertion that everything must have a cause is itself overly simplistic. I do note that you have no actual response to my counter-argument, other than to dismiss the entirely legitimate point of contention. In what way can something be said to cause another thing if both things occur simultaneously (since there is no time by which to separate them)? Moreover, how could you say that the "cause" comes first, absent time?

The entire first cause argument is vulnerable to this because it rests on a problematic interpretation of causality--an interpretation that falls apart without time. This is a problem that you have not even ventured to respond against, despite being an entirely valid line of discussion.

As I said before, this argument holds little interest for us as it simply has nothing to do with what religion means to us.

Then why the hell did you post in this thread?

Understand what religion offers to me.

To be perfectly honest, I simply do not care what it offers you.

It gives me a view of life that promises help when I need it far beyond the puny efforts of my fellow scientists, a way of exerting control on the seemingly uncontrollable, and the promise that my short century (if I am lucky) will lead to a wondrous eternity at least as engaging as this life. What does your view offer me to replace that?

As I have noted before, I have no interest in trying to convert you. The only reason I even posted in this thread as because I wanted to discuss the first cause argument. Which... really should have been your reason for posting in this thread too, since doing otherwise will do nothing but drive the thread far off topic.

Then there is the observation that (in my case) my circle of fellow Christians are very much involved in solving problems in my community upon which the scientific community (to the extent that such a thing actually exists), the government and all but a very few secular groups has essentially turned their collective backs.

Good for them? What's this got to do with the subject of the thread?

So if you want to tilt with the weak, go ahead.

I wasn't aware that discussing the problems in a logical argument--in a thread inviting people to debate that very matter--constituted tilting at anything.

It will certainly be fairly easy for you. If you wish to engage with the strong religious people then you have to come to where we are.

The fact that I am not posting in a place where "strong religious people" frequent ought to indicate exactly how little I care about that. I literally do not care. I have no interest in debating people who base their religious faith on pure faith, because there is no point in doing so. It's not intellectually interesting for me, and they aren't seeking to have a meaningful argument.

I have to ask you--why would you think that anyone would be interested in debating a person who's only argument boils down to "I believe it because i believe it?" How would that be fun for the person looking for intellectual stimulation? Listening to a person pose circular arguments about the validity of their own faith is certainly duller than taxes. At least the tax code occasionally merits interest. People strong of faith have literally nothing to offer people without it when it comes to having an argument. No one else will understand the arguments of the faithful, or why it has such meaning to them. It's purely a subjective experience, and one that cannot be shared without also diving deep into the delusion.

We have no desire to go where your argument lies. We were there long long ago.

And clearly took the wrong way out. But that has nothing to do with this thread.

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest-a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty.

That's one view of things I suppose. I disagree about the nature of the individual--very fundamentally disagree, actually.

[Suska]

TL;DR

[Someone5]

TL;DR

Very helpful.

[Suska]

Does it help to tell you you're talking nonsense?

[Someone5]

Does it help to tell you you're talking nonsense?

Are you going to actually reply, or just do a drive-by insult?

[Suska]

I wouldn't call it an insult.

I've already given my assessment on page 1, if you'd care to reply to that I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Someone5]

I wouldn't call it an insult.

I've already given my assessment on page 1, if you'd care to reply to that I'd be happy to answer any questions.

What you wrote essentially had no relation to my comment.

[Suska]

You dismissed Drlee's comments out of hand, I thought they were quite good, on the other hand even his view is a parochial way of looking at things which none of us need to even discuss. These things have been discussed for millenia and every kind of answer has been given. Apparently you're not familiar with my argument, and apparently you don't understand how it makes everything you've said since moot. Your idea that the argument put forth in the OP is damaging is absurd, it's just one parochial view that you attribute to everyone and consider to be the only way of thinking, but it's wrong in ways which I pointed out.

[Someone5]

You dismissed Drlee's comments out of hand,

By giving a line-by-line commentary on them? He "dismissed" my own every bit as much. The only thing I dismissed was his changing of the goal posts.

I thought they were quite good, on the other hand even his view is a parochial way of looking at things which none of us need to even discuss. These things have been discussed for millenia and every kind of answer has been given. Apparently you're not familiar with my argument,

I'm quite aware that it does not address--in any way whatsoever--what I was pointing out.

and apparently you don't understand how it makes everything you've said since moot.

"What there is instead is the healthier notion of what is present, and what is present is a myriad of willful forces in harmony or contention, therefore causation is immanent rather than deterministic, therefore we are endowed with agency, rather than automated" is utterly meaningless given the context. The fact that human beings have agency does not have any relationship whatsoever to origin of the universe. Remember; the first cause argument is very specifically about physical causation, not about searching out metaphysical meaning. The first cause is very much about what rock first banged into another rock, not about who first attributed meaning to rocks banging together.

You're literally not even discussing causality in the same context. You're confusing causality in the physical sense for causality in the metaphysical sense. It's not about a quest for meaning at all--the first cause argument is very specifically about the physical causes of the universe. Like I said, what you wrote has nothing to do with my comment.

To put this in formal logical terms, you have engaged in an equivocation fallacy by confusing the sense of the term "cause."

Your idea that the argument put forth in the OP is damaging is absurd,

What? I was pointing out that the OP's argument is invalid because causality breaks down without time, and thus when discussing the origins of time, causality does not apply. I did not suggest that the OP's argument was "damaging" at all. Did you even read what I wrote?

it's just one parochial view that you attribute to everyone and consider to be the only way of thinking, but it's wrong in ways which I pointed out.

I think you're replying to the wrong person, since you are literally not writing about the same thing I am.

[Suska]

You're confusing causality in the physical sense for causality in the metaphysical sense.

I'm not confused. You're the one that wanted to talk about God, or do you now prefer to talk about the Big Bang?

[Someone5]

I'm not confused. You're the one that wanted to talk about God,

You are clearly quite confused here. Go back and read some more. I've been rather clear that I would rather talk about the logical argument that is the topic of this thread rather than personal beliefs in god. I've stated that repeatedly, in a few posts now. The only reason I even commented was because Drlee asked.

or do you now prefer to talk about the Big Bang?

Well, that is a rather necessary component of discussing the first cause argument, if people step away from the logical flaws.

[Suska]

You can have your single narrow logical window, I have the actual world.

[Someone5]

You can have your single narrow logical window, I have the actual world.

From what I can recall of past conversations, your beliefs--at least to my understanding--have very little to do with the actual world and quite a lot more to do with what you wish the world were like.

[Suska]

It is indeed far more accurate to say that in any thing relevant to the qualities of human life (suffering), it is what you make it, than that it has anything to do with physical tendencies. You brought God up, you want to treat the subject narrowly, that's your mistake whether you feel like you can possibly make a mistake or not.

[Someone5]

It is indeed far more accurate to say that in any thing relevant to the qualities of human life (suffering), it is what you make it, than that it has anything to do with physical tendencies.

Suffering is not purely a metaphysical concept, it is an actual condition in the physical world. That's quite likely the only suffering that actually matters to most people.

You brought God up, you want to treat the subject narrowly, that's your mistake whether you feel like you can possibly make a mistake or not.

I make a lot of mistakes, but my position on the first cause argument is not one of them. Neither is my position on deities. And no, I did not bring god up. The person who posed the OP did.

[Suska]

Suffering is not pain.

You have been arguing with Drlee about things for which the nature of God is relevant, no?

[Drlee]

I am not going to respond at great length but will point out a couple of things. First Someone5 you don't get to make the rules here. I posted...get over it. Threads go that way.

You are not going to get away with some bullshit assertion that you want to talk about first cause in the religion forum and then get angry when the talk turns to faith If you want to do that I suggest you do not post in the religion forum. We also are not going to let you get away with some nonsense about not wanting to change religious people's minds and then go on to say, in the same voluminous post that you DO intend to change their minds. Much of your frustration seems to come from the fact that the religious people on this forum reject your premise as irrelevant and refuse to rise to your bait. Again. Pity.

Your argument can be challenged in the religion forum because you obviously not only don't understand religious faith in a conceptual sense not to mention a practical one, you also insist on asserting that there is some scientific aspect to faith. Well there is. But you will not find it in the colleges of Math or Physics. You will find it in the Colleges of Psychology or Psychiatry.

You are free to post in any of the scientific forums and I will refrain from commenting there. In this thread you have no position to offer me that I might wish to debate with you. I took great pains to explain that to you and you got angry. Again. That is a pity.

If you want to discuss science with me I am happy to do that as I previously said. I will do that in any appropriate forum. I will prefer to stick to my own fields of 'expertise' which I am sad to say does not include theoretical physics, cosmology or in the case of your proposed argument 'cosmogony' I believe. But if you want to talk about scientific stuff I am ready to go at it with you on epidemiology and stuff like that. I got a load of that stuff.

@ Suska. I agree that my answers which were mostly addressed at Peolemo's seemingly sincere interest in how religious people proceed in their faith, and were indeed parochial. Not positively denominational you have to admit but definitely proceeding from my Christian faith. I have always been interested in your responses on religion and would like to discuss them with you sometime. I am thinking you are coming from some , is the word transcendental?..place. I had a friend who practiced Eckankar for quite a time and his ideas, stripped of the commercial Eck buzz words, remind me of some of your previous posts in other threads. Is this correct?

By the way you are absolutely correct. Someone5 tries to forward an argument about "God" but refuses to engage in a discussion of His nature or even seek to define what He is to believers. He seems to want to argue with what he considers little more than did he say fairytale?

[Suska]

Just keepin it real.

tbh I didn't think there was much need to follow up what you said. It's absurd trying to hostile-debate these things. I know that language is an art form. I don't expect it to be something programmable. I know that the heart goes much deeper than we can express, even the mind is more subtle than words can handle. It's positively weird to me that people want to approach the matter from a harshly discrete intellectual perspective when what we're talking about... God is a word most truly uttered in awe, even in woeful awe, and people want to say it's some dude at the end of time, or in orbit... Well, it's a lot more than I can say, than even history has said. It's no wonder to me so much spirituality is music and poetry and symbolism, the wonder is why those who don't even love the notion want to say they own it once they've got a piece of cloth from its robe in their fingers.