What do we need a deity for? (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, August 05, 2011, 20:39 (4859 days ago) @ broken_cynic

KENT: Well, so long as you insist on a (false) dichotomy of being unable to judge anything in the absence of complete knowledge, you will die on that fence. I'm sure that prospect doesn't bother you, but I'm not at all sure I see the value in it, for you or anyone else.
 
You have emphasized "anything", which is an astonishing presumption on your part. I have explained why I refuse to take on trust the chance explanation of the origin of life, and I remain open-minded on matters relating to the mysteries of consciousness and psychic/mystic phenomena. In the context of belief or disbelief in God, it is virtually certain that I will die on my fence. Value is not an issue. I'm not at all sure that I see any value for you or anyone else in your contemptuous rejection of all deities as "utterly ridiculous". (I'm amazed that anyone actually knows about all the deities. It must have taken you years of research.) For the record, I make judgements all the time in the absence of complete knowledge. No-one has complete knowledge when judgements are called for ... if they did, there would be no need to make a judgement! I do not believe absolute knowledge of the God issue is possible, and I do not consider that I have sufficient knowledge to make a judgement. I'm surprised that you find that so difficult to accept.-Dhw: However, you cannot expect even those who occupy the middle ground simply to cave in when you claim that although we don't know and may never know the answers to the big questions, you yourself believe that they will prove to be material.-KENT: I have neither expected, nor claimed anything of the sort. I realize I'm going about answering your posts from today a bit backwards, but eventually I'm going to get tired of answering to this damn straw man. I can see why atheists might not stick around here if you insist on arguing not with them, but a set of beliefs you assign to them.-The belief I have assigned to you is that there is a material answer to what you yourself called "the big questions". If that is not what you believe, I apologize, but how else am I to interpret: "Show me the first piece of evidence that there is anything but the material world to be accounted for, and I will reconsider whether perhaps there is some realm which science cannot touch" / "How long do we have to go on eliminating the need for non-material causes before you stop proposing them?" It would be extremely helpful if you would explain what, in this context, you do believe, rather than reiterating what you don't believe. -Dhw: I have not said that the story of Yahweh is untouchable. Yahweh, as you say, is simply the Jewish name for God (call him/her/it Jehovah, or Allah, or a UI, or whatever you like), and although I do not believe in him/her/it, unlike yourself I do not KNOW whether some such God exists or not.
 
KENT: Why are you comfortable saying you know that about Thor and FSM, but not Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/etc...? What is the difference you see? -Henderson's FSM is a parody, just like Russell's teapot. We know its precise origin and its precise purpose, and it has nothing to do with explaining the unsolved mysteries of life and the universe. Thor is a better illustration of your case, since we now know the precise cause of thunder and have no need of what I presume you would call a "supernatural" explanation. It is possible that future generations will discover that chance is capable of sparking off the infinitely more complex processes that have led to life, consciousness etc. But I'm not convinced that they will do so, because I'm not convinced that chance really is capable of such a colossal scientific achievement. For this and other reasons already explained, I leave open the option of an alternative explanation, namely a force that lies beyond our current concepts of Nature. Call it God, Yahweh...whatever you like (but forget the attributes imposed on it by the various religions ... that is a different matter). Are you genuinely unable to see the difference, or are you kidding me?