A God without compelling evidence?

[DrZoidberg]

We can't be sure but I think my experiences give me a hunch that there is an intelligent force and I think a simulation is the most likely reason to explain this. (rather than the Christian explanation for God that he has existed forever)

I hope you realize that hunches are not going to convince anybody on a forum dedicated to skepticism and rational inquiry? You will have to do better than that to get traction here. Or you are just wasting your (and everybody else's) time.

From there he makes the logical leap that that proves that God exists.

No that is mainly based on post #88 and other experiences. And I never talk about proof of God... in fact I quoted in the OP:
"When you [God] do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
See also post #91.

Which is argument from ignorance. If God existing and not existing has the same outcome, why bother with believing in God? What are you adding to the explanation by introducing the God concept?

The scientific world is full of very technical and specific terms for things we thought were important but we've stopped using, because they explain nothing. They're not adding to our understanding of the world. They just make explaining things more complicated.

You can remove God or an intelligent designer from your description of the world, and it would make no difference. So why keep God?

 

[excreationist]

I hope you realize that hunches are not going to convince anybody on a forum dedicated to skepticism and rational inquiry? You will have to do better than that to get traction here. Or you are just wasting your (and everybody else's) time.

You seem to have the impression that I just have hunches - but they are based on personal experiences like those in post #88. I've had so many that a typical Christian would assume that God is definitely real.

No that is mainly based on post #88 and other experiences. And I never talk about proof of God... in fact I quoted in the OP:
"When you [God] do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
See also post #91.

Which is argument from ignorance.

What about this:

Scientific American - Physics - Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/

We just assume the principle of indifference, which is the default assumption when you don’t have any data or leanings either way​

If God existing and not existing has the same outcome, why bother with believing in God? What are you adding to the explanation by introducing the God concept?

I can feel comforted with a belief in an intelligent force - in post #113 I mentioned how sometimes as an atheist I've been depressed and suicidal and almost gassed myself... though the "why" is due to the evidence, not because it is comforting.

The scientific world is full of very technical and specific terms for things we thought were important but we've stopped using, because they explain nothing. They're not adding to our understanding of the world. They just make explaining things more complicated.

An intelligent force explains my personal experiences... though some might just be coincidences.

You can remove God or an intelligent designer from your description of the world, and it would make no difference. So why keep God?

Note I'm saying the intervening intelligent force isn't necessarily the designer. When I was gassing myself like I said in post #113 the two songs I heard were very significant. I saw it as a message at the time. If I had assumed that it was just a meaningless coincidence then I would be dead. Though now I think those songs were not very clear evidence of an intelligent force compared to many of my other experiences.

 

[excreationist]

It's not so much the article of belief, but reason to believe. What reason to believe, to be convinced that something is true, when there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction? Desire? Hope? Meaning? Fear?

"when there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction"

Yes I don't have a strong conviction due to my theory that God is not obvious and "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations" (or fraud)

But since I think there is some evidence I have a hunch. (and my evidence includes a lot of personal experiences as well as evidence that a simulation seems somewhat likely)

 

[skepticalbip]

There would seem to be that there is more evidence that dogs and cats are the gods that are in control. After all they are adored, pampered, and cared for without having to put forth any serious effort themselves. Who but a god could arrange things such a different species would go to such extremes to see to their happiness?

The ancient Egyptians apparently saw this truth so worshipped them.

 

[excreationist]

There would seem to be that there is more evidence that dogs and cats are the gods that are in control.

Then why are they sold and eaten at some Chinese markets? "More evidence"? Billions of people believe traditional beliefs about God and I'm not aware of ANY people believing that dogs AND cats are in control....

After all they are adored, pampered, and cared for without having to put forth any serious effort themselves. Who but a god could arrange things such a different species would go to such extremes to see to their happiness?

The ancient Egyptians apparently saw this truth so worshipped them.

BTW do you have ANY evidence that dogs and cats have the consciousness required to be in control? And I thought the ancient Egyptians only worshipped cats, not dogs. And they had lots of other gods...

 

[skepticalbip]

There would seem to be that there is more evidence that dogs and cats are the gods that are in control.

Then why are they sold and eaten at some Chinese markets? "More evidence"? Billions of people believe traditional beliefs about God and I'm not aware of ANY people believing that dogs AND cats are in control....

After all they are adored, pampered, and cared for without having to put forth any serious effort themselves. Who but a god could arrange things such a different species would go to such extremes to see to their happiness?

The ancient Egyptians apparently saw this truth so worshipped them.

BTW do you have ANY evidence that dogs and cats have the consciousness required to be in control?

It's obvious that our dog and cat gods are hiding their massive intelligence from us. How else could they have so much control without us noticing it?

And I thought the ancient Egyptians only worshipped cats, not dogs. And they had lots of other gods...

 

[excreationist]

It's obvious that our dog and cat gods are hiding their massive intelligence from us. How else could they have so much control without us noticing it?

Well all I've been saying is that I think an intelligent force exists. I did think somehow AI could be involved but it is possible that the intelligent forces involve cats and dogs...

So I guess that picture is a dog god?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If reality is a simulation so what's the takeaway lesson? Maybe the simulator is also a simulation. And simulators have to come from something, correct? If not then believing in a simulation is no different than just believing in magic.

I mean, is there something unnatural about your simulator, something that makes it not part of a larger natural reality?

 

[skepticalbip]

It's obvious that our dog and cat gods are hiding their massive intelligence from us. How else could they have so much control without us noticing it?

Well all I've been saying is that I think an intelligent force exists. I did think somehow AI could be involved but it is possible that the intelligent forces involve cats and dogs...

So I guess that picture is a dog god?

It is one of the Egyptian's representations of a chief god, Anubis.

Here's another Egyptian representation of Anubis:

 

[excreationist]

If reality is a simulation so what's the takeaway lesson?

That it is more likely that it began relatively recently and used "level of detail" than every particle being simulated for billions of years. That is because it would allow what Elon Musk says about billions of computers and set-top boxes and if our reality was chosen at random it would be more likely to be one of the billions of the corner-cutting simulations.

Maybe the simulator is also a simulation.

Yes but I think the complexity of each simulation would be less than the universe it comes from so it is unlikely there would be infinite regress.

And simulators have to come from something, correct?

Yes probably naturalistic-seeming physics like seem to be the case in our universe.

If not then believing in a simulation is no different than just believing in magic.

No I think it involves physics and something similar to "machine learning" (like in Flight Simulator 2020)
see:
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-ai-universe-sim-fast-accurateand.html

I mean, is there something unnatural about your simulator, something that makes it not part of a larger natural reality?

Well I think it is possible for intelligent forces outside of the simulator to intervene though I think they seem to always do it in a way that skeptics could explain as "coincidence, delusion, hallucinations or fraud".

 

[excreationist]

Onto the topic of agnosticism....

About the quote from Futurama that this thread is based on....

"...Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch like a safecracker or a pickpocket... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

Then at the end of the episode it zooms out from Earth to "God". He chuckles and repeats:

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

The chuckling shows that in the show, "God" has a sense of humor (see post #88)

Apparently this is the only time in Futurama that a quote had been repeated like that so it seems to be important. Futurama's creator Matt Groening identifies as an agnostic and I think that quote involves the essence of agnosticism - not knowing whether God exists or not.

God having a sense of humor and encouraging agnosticism is very attractive to me.... agnosticism could be said to involve God playing hide and seek.... (mentioned in Kabbalah and by Alan Watts)

The other main responses to this is the Bible being viewed as 100% true and moral, or atheists being black and white and seeing problems with the Bible as it being evidence that God is a fairy tale....

Other quotes from the episode:

Leela: Oh, no! The monks! We forgot to let them out of the laundry room.

Fry: Do we have to? I mean, they're monks. I'm sure their God will let them out or at least give them more shoes to eat.

Bender: Fat chance! You can't count on God for jack. He pretty much told me so himself. Now come on. If we don't save those monks, no one will!
​

That's related to Bible verses about not putting God to the test....

 

[DrZoidberg]

You seem to have the impression that I just have hunches - but they are based on personal experiences like those in post #88. I've had so many that a typical Christian would assume that God is definitely real.

Personal experiences are also obviously also worthless evidence on a forum. It's got to be something the rest of us can verify. You know, just like everything in science. It's a good bar of quality for your arguments.

The James Randi association offers $1 000 000 to anybody that can prove the existence of anything supernatural. You don't even need to prove God exists.

And finally, I've experienced seeing God. I have had religious experiences. Several. I have heard the voice of God. Do I therefore believe in God? No. I understand it was all the product of my brain. My pattern searching brain.

Which is argument from ignorance.

What about this:

Scientific American - Physics - Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/

We just assume the principle of indifference, which is the default assumption when you don’t have any data or leanings either way​

We've had this conversation many times. My attitude is the same. The Scientific American is a popular science magazine, ie light on scientific fact.

If God existing and not existing has the same outcome, why bother with believing in God? What are you adding to the explanation by introducing the God concept?

I can feel comforted with a belief in an intelligent force - in post #113 I mentioned how sometimes as an atheist I've been depressed and suicidal and almost gassed myself... though the "why" is due to the evidence, not because it is comforting.

Finally you said something sensible that I can understand. Unfortunately reality doesn't care about our feelings.

But if God gives you comfort, you can believe in God emotionally while rationally understanding that God doesn't exist. I meditate. I believe in God while I'm meditating, because it helps me. It works for making the meditation better. After meditating I stop believing in God. You can hack your brains emotional state by asserting beliefs. Our rational faculties are well... clever. While our emotional minds are idiots. You can easily fool yourself momentarily if you need some emotional comfort.

The last year I've started going to church. I go to the local protestant mass every Sunday. With my Christian girlfriend. I love it. It works great for me and it's something that makes the rest of the week more bearable. But I don't believe in God. To me it's comforting lies.

This is a Freethought forum. A place to express views and have sceptics try their best to rip it apart using rational arguments. The fact that belief in God is comforting isn't a rational argument.

So why did you come to a freethought sceptics forum and express beliefs that aren't rational? What are you hoping to get out of it? You know we're just going to shoot it down, right?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Finally you said something sensible that I can understand. Unfortunately reality doesn't care about our feelings.

But if God gives you comfort, you can believe in God emotionally while rationally understanding that God doesn't exist. I meditate. I believe in God while I'm meditating, because it helps me. It works for making the meditation better. After meditating I stop believing in God. You can hack your brains emotional state by asserting beliefs. Our rational faculties are well... clever. While our emotional minds are idiots. You can easily fool yourself momentarily if you need some emotional comfort.

The last year I've started going to church. I go to the local protestant mass every Sunday. With my Christian girlfriend. I love it. It works great for me and it's something that makes the rest of the week more bearable. But I don't believe in God. To me it's comforting lies.

This is a Freethought forum. A place to express views and have sceptics try their best to rip it apart using rational arguments. The fact that belief in God is comforting isn't a rational argument.

So why did you come to a freethought sceptics forum and express beliefs that aren't rational? What are you hoping to get out of it? You know we're just going to shoot it down, right?

If another person cares then reality does in fact care. If I care, then reality does in fact care. If we witness caring in any form then we have witnessed reality caring. This certainly isn't evidence for gods or for simulations, simply evidence for caring.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Finally you said something sensible that I can understand. Unfortunately reality doesn't care about our feelings.

But if God gives you comfort, you can believe in God emotionally while rationally understanding that God doesn't exist. I meditate. I believe in God while I'm meditating, because it helps me. It works for making the meditation better. After meditating I stop believing in God. You can hack your brains emotional state by asserting beliefs. Our rational faculties are well... clever. While our emotional minds are idiots. You can easily fool yourself momentarily if you need some emotional comfort.

The last year I've started going to church. I go to the local protestant mass every Sunday. With my Christian girlfriend. I love it. It works great for me and it's something that makes the rest of the week more bearable. But I don't believe in God. To me it's comforting lies.

This is a Freethought forum. A place to express views and have sceptics try their best to rip it apart using rational arguments. The fact that belief in God is comforting isn't a rational argument.

So why did you come to a freethought sceptics forum and express beliefs that aren't rational? What are you hoping to get out of it? You know we're just going to shoot it down, right?

If another person cares then reality does in fact care. If I care, then reality does in fact care. If we witness caring in any form then we have witnessed reality caring. This certainly isn't evidence for gods or for simulations, simply evidence for caring.

That is a solid piece of argumentation. I commend you, Sir. I retract my statement. Feelings can change reality. Thank you for educating me on this matter.

 

[bilby]

Finally you said something sensible that I can understand. Unfortunately reality doesn't care about our feelings.

But if God gives you comfort, you can believe in God emotionally while rationally understanding that God doesn't exist. I meditate. I believe in God while I'm meditating, because it helps me. It works for making the meditation better. After meditating I stop believing in God. You can hack your brains emotional state by asserting beliefs. Our rational faculties are well... clever. While our emotional minds are idiots. You can easily fool yourself momentarily if you need some emotional comfort.

The last year I've started going to church. I go to the local protestant mass every Sunday. With my Christian girlfriend. I love it. It works great for me and it's something that makes the rest of the week more bearable. But I don't believe in God. To me it's comforting lies.

This is a Freethought forum. A place to express views and have sceptics try their best to rip it apart using rational arguments. The fact that belief in God is comforting isn't a rational argument.

So why did you come to a freethought sceptics forum and express beliefs that aren't rational? What are you hoping to get out of it? You know we're just going to shoot it down, right?

If another person cares then reality does in fact care. If I care, then reality does in fact care. If we witness caring in any form then we have witnessed reality caring. This certainly isn't evidence for gods or for simulations, simply evidence for caring.

That is a solid piece of argumentation. I commend you, Sir. I retract my statement. Feelings can change reality. Thank you for educating me on this matter.

That's not what he said.

He said (correctly) that feelings are a change in reality.

They need not influence much else, but they certainly exist.

 

[excreationist]

This is a Freethought forum. A place to express views and have sceptics try their best to rip it apart using rational arguments.

Actually a key idea I've developed involves skeptics and their counter-arguments...

"I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations. Or involve fraud such as magic tricks"​

Also I can play the role of a skeptic and I think I'm able to explain away any supposed evidence of God or the supernatural....

The fact that belief in God is comforting isn't a rational argument.

The first post I mentioned comfort was in post #88.... so comfort isn't a focus of this thread...

So why did you come to a freethought sceptics forum and express beliefs that aren't rational? What are you hoping to get out of it? You know we're just going to shoot it down, right?

Well I joined in the year 2000 as an ex-creationist . Also I'm trying to refine my ideas in this thread....
Actually I've had a history of irrational ideas - e.g. 911 conspiracy theories, YEC, that magic could be real... I argued with people on the Straight Dope messageboards (that is focused on the truth) but then I got banned multiple times... (for TMI, mentioning I felt suicidal and trying to rejoin) after I'd used all of the possible counter-arguments I gave up on those beliefs....

Personal experiences are also obviously also worthless evidence on a forum. It's got to be something the rest of us can verify. You know, just like everything in science. It's a good bar of quality for your arguments.

Like I said they would involve skeptics using explanations like coincidence of hallucinations, etc.

The James Randi association offers $1 000 000 to anybody that can prove the existence of anything supernatural. You don't even need to prove God exists.

As expected no-one has claimed it. And some of those applying for it involve fraud.

And finally, I've experienced seeing God. I have had religious experiences. Several. I have heard the voice of God. Do I therefore believe in God? No. I understand it was all the product of my brain. My pattern searching brain.

That would involve the hallucination explanation....

What about this:

Scientific American - Physics - Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/

We just assume the principle of indifference, which is the default assumption when you don’t have any data or leanings either way​

We've had this conversation many times. My attitude is the same. The Scientific American is a popular science magazine, ie light on scientific fact.

It appears that you just read my mention of that article - there is no sign that you actually read the article. You are very eager to dismiss my simulation beliefs and your counter-arguments concerning that article are very weak.

If God existing and not existing has the same outcome, why bother with believing in God? What are you adding to the explanation by introducing the God concept?

I can feel comforted with a belief in an intelligent force - in post #113 I mentioned how sometimes as an atheist I've been depressed and suicidal and almost gassed myself... though the "why" is due to the evidence, not because it is comforting.

Finally you said something sensible that I can understand. Unfortunately reality doesn't care about our feelings.

I said "though the "why" is due to the evidence, not because it is comforting". Note I am talking about what I see as evidence - not proof - and like I said it can be explained away by skeptics as coincidence, etc....

But if God gives you comfort, you can believe in God emotionally while rationally understanding that God doesn't exist.

If it is proven that no intelligent force exists then why do a lot of scientists believe in it?

I meditate. I believe in God while I'm meditating, because it helps me. It works for making the meditation better. After meditating I stop believing in God. You can hack your brains emotional state by asserting beliefs. Our rational faculties are well... clever. While our emotional minds are idiots. You can easily fool yourself momentarily if you need some emotional comfort.

The last year I've started going to church. I go to the local protestant mass every Sunday. With my Christian girlfriend. I love it. It works great for me and it's something that makes the rest of the week more bearable. But I don't believe in God. To me it's comforting lies.

So does your Christian girlfriend think you're going to hell?

 

[DBT]

As mentioned, simulation is an interesting idea, but there is no way to test it. If someone wants to believe anyway, that is their own business.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As mentioned, simulation is an interesting idea, but there is no way to test it. If someone wants to believe anyway, that is their own business.

But as opined earlier, how would simulators know they were not part of a larger simulation? Clearly "simulation" is being used as another word for a god, gods are actually a clever idea when you think about human history and the mileage they've gotten. We could ask, "Is it simulations all the way down?" Maybe we should say, "The simulation said, 'Let there be light.'"

Saying something is a simulation is just being clever, it doesn't answer anything. Why does the moon go through phases? Obviously because it's in the simulation of the moon to go through phases.

Like you said, believing in simulations is the same as believing in gods and woo generally. But if it brings comfort, that's fine. Let's just not invent a new reason to harm one another that has to do with beliefs in the odd.

 

[Jarhyn]

As mentioned, simulation is an interesting idea, but there is no way to test it. If someone wants to believe anyway, that is their own business.

But as opined earlier, how would simulators know they were not part of a larger simulation? Clearly "simulation" is being used as another word for a god, gods are actually a clever idea when you think about human history and the mileage they've gotten. We could ask, "Is it simulations all the way down?" Maybe we should say, "The simulation said, 'Let there be light.'"

Saying something is a simulation is just being clever, it doesn't answer anything. Why does the moon go through phases? Obviously because it's in the simulation of the moon to go through phases.

Like you said, believing in simulations is the same as believing in gods and woo generally. But if it brings comfort, that's fine. Let's just not invent a new reason to harm one another that has to do with beliefs in the odd.

Believing in simulations is not woo. I can hold up in front of you an actual extant simulation, one created by us and ignorant of it's nature as a simulation.

The woo part comes in where people assert that it IS, positively, a simulation. Consider these three positions:

The Universe IS a simulation

The Universe IS NOT a simulation

The Universe MAY BE a simulation

The first two statements there are dishonest, because there is no way to distinguish whether it is or not, particularly if it is not; there are many simulations indistinguishable from non-simulations.

The first two are, thusly, beliefs.

The third is different insofar as it accepts that the universe may be a simulation (after all, simulation is an observable possibility through the real existence of subordinate simulation) while also not allowing any moral leverage of that fact (through the acceptance of the possibility it is not).

This means that while our ethics must be built around the assumption that what is right for us, as a social species, in this only life we have evidence for on the basis of the unchanging and real physics and metaphysics of this only existence we have any guarantees of living in.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As mentioned, simulation is an interesting idea, but there is no way to test it. If someone wants to believe anyway, that is their own business.

But as opined earlier, how would simulators know they were not part of a larger simulation? Clearly "simulation" is being used as another word for a god, gods are actually a clever idea when you think about human history and the mileage they've gotten. We could ask, "Is it simulations all the way down?" Maybe we should say, "The simulation said, 'Let there be light.'"

Saying something is a simulation is just being clever, it doesn't answer anything. Why does the moon go through phases? Obviously because it's in the simulation of the moon to go through phases.

Like you said, believing in simulations is the same as believing in gods and woo generally. But if it brings comfort, that's fine. Let's just not invent a new reason to harm one another that has to do with beliefs in the odd.

Believing in simulations is not woo. I can hold up in front of you an actual extant simulation, one created by us and ignorant of it's nature as a simulation.

The woo part comes in where people assert that it IS, positively, a simulation. Consider these three positions:

The Universe IS a simulation

The Universe IS NOT a simulation

The Universe MAY BE a simulation

The first two statements there are dishonest, because there is no way to distinguish whether it is or not, particularly if it is not; there are many simulations indistinguishable from non-simulations.

The first two are, thusly, beliefs.

The third is different insofar as it accepts that the universe may be a simulation (after all, simulation is an observable possibility through the real existence of subordinate simulation) while also not allowing any moral leverage of that fact (through the acceptance of the possibility it is not).

This means that while our ethics must be built around the assumption that what is right for us, as a social species, in this only life we have evidence for on the basis of the unchanging and real physics and metaphysics of this only existence we have any guarantees of living in.

But if it is impossible to know if the universe is a simulation or not, I don't understand how the third answer is not just as dishonest. If I discover the universe to be a simulation and meet the simulator, how do I know the simulator is not a simulation? How does it know? How does a god know it isn't a simulation? What would be the test? Does the whole universe have to be a simulation? How do we decide what is and isn't being simulated? When you think about it, we can answer a lot of vexing questions about the universe and all manner of human experiences by invoking simulation theory. But I don't see how doing so would be anything other than adding more woo.