Good point!

 

 

I'm just waiting for you to make one. Your last two posts don't really have anything for me to respond to.

You asked me if I look up to Christopher Hitchens, I responded and you said 'lol'.

 

My bad.

 

 

You can absolutely be an atheist and not respect people's belief in the divine and still have thought about why you are an atheist. Hitch is but one example of that.

You asked me if I look up to Christopher Hitchens, I responded and you said 'lol'.

 

My bad.

 

 

You can absolutely be an atheist and not respect people's belief in the divine and still have thought about why you are an atheist. Hitch is but one example of that.

 

 

 

And what was I supposed to argue that with? "No! I don't agree that you look up to Hitchens"

 

Hitchens seems to really hate organized religion and what it brings. I don't think he's ever laughed at the notion of something divine existing beyond what we can see. If he has, then he's an idiot with his head so far up his ass he can see what he had for dinner. I'd like to see where his logic reaches when answering the question of where we came from. I don't see how this is such a wild notion. It's a question that has no answer yet some people seem to believe they have it. You can't just ridicule one theory (God, not Christianity, not the burning bush or the snake or whatever the hell you said) when alternatives have gotten just as far - and someone who is really (truly) searching for the answer has to reach a point where they respect (not believe) the alternative to a logical explanation because logic does not extend infinitely. If you believe it does, then you're as blind as anyone else you're criticizing.

Just because we do not have the answer for the universe's origin does not mean that you have to accept god as a possible answer. Religion provides an answer based on myth and superstition. If you are looking for a reasonable, fact based answer to how the universe came about, I don't see why you have to accept the divine as a possible answer.

 

The lack of concrete evidence does not mean that all options are viable. Im of the opinion that we do not and may never have an answer for why or how the universe began, but that doesn't mean I have to accept that god may exist, given no other evidence. You are free to believe otherwise.

 

If we never have an answer as to how the universe began, in my mind, that still does not give credence to the existence of god. If you think that makes me close minded, or that it means I have no reason to not believe in god, then that's your prerogative.

Just because we do not have the answer for the universe's origin does not mean that you have to accept god as a possible answer. Religion provides an answer based on myth and superstition. If you are looking for a reasonable, fact based answer to how the universe came about, I don't see why you have to accept the divine as a possible answer.

 

The lack of concrete evidence does not mean that all options are viable. Im of the opinion that we do not and may never have an answer for why or how the universe began, but that doesn't mean I have to accept that god may exist, given no other evidence. You are free to believe otherwise.

 

 

 

I don't see how one can seriously discredit the notion of God without some predetermined bias or distaste for it.

 

Do you believe that the existence of God is unreasonable? Why?

Is the idea of a grand architect of the universe unreasonable to me?

 

Yes, inasmuch as I've seen no evidence to suggest there is one. Basing your reality on the existence of something to which there exists no evidence is unreasonable.

Is the idea of a grand architect of the universe unreasonable to me?

 

Yes, inasmuch as I've seen no evidence to suggest there is one. Basing your reality on the existence of something to which there exists no evidence is unreasonable.

 

 

What would constitute evidence for you? Some guy coming down from the sky and saying 'Hi! I'm God?' We'll never have proof of it. You seem to be content with the notion that we may never find out where we came from and why, but how can you concede that and place all of your faith in logic(because that's exactly what you do when you don't respect the possibility of God)? There's no proof of logic being able to answer this question, because it has done far from that when employed. It hasn't gotten us one step closer but, rather, created more questions.

We'll never have proof, in my opinion, because there is nothing to have proof of. I don't think of it as not believing in god, I think of it as there is no god for me to believe in. For me it is not a rejection of god, because there is nothing to reject.

 

I don't look at it as placing faith in anything. Faith, to me, implies some sort of consequence. I don't see any consequences to belief in god's nonexistence.

 

And why do we HAVE to have the answers to where we come from. You are basing this on a need to have those answers. If science cannot provide those answers, then I'm fine with not knowing. There will be plenty of things we will not know the answer to in our lives. I don't feel the need to look to the supernatural for the answers.

We don't HAVE to have an answer - as you said, we may never find it - but it's a question that everyone who's lived long enough to develop a sense of being has asked one way or another.

 

Faith, in the context that I used it, means placing it [logic] as the utmost authority. I think logic in itself would dictate the possibility of a God. It would also lead one to reach the notion that just because logic solves many issues in our world doesn't mean that it's applicable in every situation, which would open the possibility for an alternative. I think it'd be a fallacy to assume so.

 

I know this has the potential to get really stupid really quickly, but could you quickly explain what you consider love to be?

I could try, but it's not something that is logical.

 

But I don't agree at all that logic dictates the possibility of a god. In the evidence of absence, jumping to "God created the universe" is not logical. You are basically saying "we have no other answer, so god is the answer." that is not logical.

 

If there was any evidence for the existence of god, it would be logical to consider the possibility, but as far as I see it, the evidence is circumstantial at best.

 

 

I'll say this: the existence of love is something I feel when I think about my wife. I've never encountered anything with the divine that comes close to that.

I could try, but it's not something that is logical.

 

But I don't agree at all that logic dictates the possibility of a god. In the evidence of absence, jumping to "God created the universe" is not logical. You are basically saying "we have no other answer, so god is the answer." that is not logical.

 

If there was any evidence for the existence of god, it would be logical to consider the possibility, but as far as I see it, the evidence is circumstantial at best.

 

 

I'll say this: the existence of love is something I feel when I think about my wife. I've never encountered anything with the divine that comes close to that.

 

 

It's not jumping to anything, it's being open to the possibility of it. Saying 'since it's not A, it has to be B' is illogical, but believing that since logic has only increased the questions we have about our universe, perhaps that logic cannot solve this. You also can't say that just because logic may not be able to give an answer that an answer cannot be found. Jumping the gun is illogical, but assuming that logic can provide an answer or, if it can't, that an answer cannot be found is illogical as well.

 

Love is a perfect example of an illogical phenomenon. There is nothing logical about a permanent infatuation with someone else whose flaws you understand and often times cannot stand. There is nothing logical about loving your mother or father if they treat you wrong, or loving a sibling when they've just been born and you know nothing of them. Where's the logic in gay men falling in love when they'd be chastised and alienated from society? There just isn't any. You can't explain love logically yet it's something you've clearly experienced with your wife. Unless you somehow can?

 

So what's to say that logic HAS to account for our creation?

I could try, but it's not something that is logical.

 

But I don't agree at all that logic dictates the possibility of a god. In the evidence of absence, jumping to "God created the universe" is not logical. You are basically saying "we have no other answer, so god is the answer." that is not logical.

 

If there was any evidence for the existence of god, it would be logical to consider the possibility, but as far as I see it, the evidence is circumstantial at best.

 

 

I'll say this: the existence of love is something I feel when I think about my wife. I've never encountered anything with the divine that comes close to that.

 

 

It's not jumping to anything, it's being open to the possibility of it. Saying 'since it's not A, it has to be B' is illogical, but believing that since logic has only increased the questions we have about our universe, perhaps that logic cannot solve this. You also can't say that just because logic may not be able to give an answer that an answer cannot be found. Jumping the gun is illogical, but assuming that logic can provide an answer or, if it can't, that an answer cannot be found is illogical as well.

 

Love is a perfect example of an illogical phenomenon. There is nothing logical about a permanent infatuation with someone else whose flaws you understand and often times cannot stand. There is nothing logical about loving your mother or father if they treat you wrong, or loving a sibling when they've just been born and you know nothing of them. Where's the logic in gay men falling in love when they'd be chastised and alienated from society? There just isn't any. You can't explain love logically yet it's something you've clearly experienced with your wife. Unless you somehow can?

 

So what's to say that logic HAS to account for our creation?

 

Without commenting on your general statements, the specific examples you choose are poor. Aside from the fact that "love" is an arbitrary concept with a fluid definition, the other things you mention are indeed "logically" explainable via chemical-psychological and biological processes.

I could try, but it's not something that is logical.

 

But I don't agree at all that logic dictates the possibility of a god. In the evidence of absence, jumping to "God created the universe" is not logical. You are basically saying "we have no other answer, so god is the answer." that is not logical.

 

If there was any evidence for the existence of god, it would be logical to consider the possibility, but as far as I see it, the evidence is circumstantial at best.

 

 

I'll say this: the existence of love is something I feel when I think about my wife. I've never encountered anything with the divine that comes close to that.

 

 

It's not jumping to anything, it's being open to the possibility of it. Saying 'since it's not A, it has to be B' is illogical, but believing that since logic has only increased the questions we have about our universe, perhaps that logic cannot solve this. You also can't say that just because logic may not be able to give an answer that an answer cannot be found. Jumping the gun is illogical, but assuming that logic can provide an answer or, if it can't, that an answer cannot be found is illogical as well.

 

Love is a perfect example of an illogical phenomenon. There is nothing logical about a permanent infatuation with someone else whose flaws you understand and often times cannot stand. There is nothing logical about loving your mother or father if they treat you wrong, or loving a sibling when they've just been born and you know nothing of them. Where's the logic in gay men falling in love when they'd be chastised and alienated from society? There just isn't any. You can't explain love logically yet it's something you've clearly experienced with your wife. Unless you somehow can?

 

So what's to say that logic HAS to account for our creation?

 

Without commenting on your general statements, the specific examples you choose are poor. Aside from the fact that "love" is an arbitrary concept with a fluid definition, the other things you mention are indeed "logically" explainable via chemical-psychological and biological processes.

 

Measuring what love is and what isn't is arbitrary but the existence of it isn't. Psychology is not an objective science, but rather a science made up largely of theories that build upon one another. You can't measure human emotion in an objective way, which is what I'm trying to say here. The criticisms of psychology are a perfect example of what I'm trying to communicate. Just because we have a name for something doesn't mean we truly understand it or measure it. We can't logically explain these things, which is why we can't prove them and have to write them down as theories.

 

What biologic process are you speaking of? Reproduction is a biological process, love isn't. Our longing to reproduce with those we love rather than any person we see on the street isn't explained biologically.

I could try, but it's not something that is logical.

 

But I don't agree at all that logic dictates the possibility of a god. In the evidence of absence, jumping to "God created the universe" is not logical. You are basically saying "we have no other answer, so god is the answer." that is not logical.

 

If there was any evidence for the existence of god, it would be logical to consider the possibility, but as far as I see it, the evidence is circumstantial at best.

 

 

I'll say this: the existence of love is something I feel when I think about my wife. I've never encountered anything with the divine that comes close to that.

 

 

It's not jumping to anything, it's being open to the possibility of it. Saying 'since it's not A, it has to be B' is illogical, but believing that since logic has only increased the questions we have about our universe, perhaps that logic cannot solve this. You also can't say that just because logic may not be able to give an answer that an answer cannot be found. Jumping the gun is illogical, but assuming that logic can provide an answer or, if it can't, that an answer cannot be found is illogical as well.

 

Love is a perfect example of an illogical phenomenon. There is nothing logical about a permanent infatuation with someone else whose flaws you understand and often times cannot stand. There is nothing logical about loving your mother or father if they treat you wrong, or loving a sibling when they've just been born and you know nothing of them. Where's the logic in gay men falling in love when they'd be chastised and alienated from society? There just isn't any. You can't explain love logically yet it's something you've clearly experienced with your wife. Unless you somehow can?

 

So what's to say that logic HAS to account for our creation?

 

Like I said, love is something I've experienced. I've never experienced anything similar with the divine. I'm not big on lending credence to something that I've never experienced, that's pretty much my stance, as I said earlier.

I could try, but it's not something that is logical.

 

But I don't agree at all that logic dictates the possibility of a god. In the evidence of absence, jumping to "God created the universe" is not logical. You are basically saying "we have no other answer, so god is the answer." that is not logical.

 

If there was any evidence for the existence of god, it would be logical to consider the possibility, but as far as I see it, the evidence is circumstantial at best.

 

 

I'll say this: the existence of love is something I feel when I think about my wife. I've never encountered anything with the divine that comes close to that.

 

 

It's not jumping to anything, it's being open to the possibility of it. Saying 'since it's not A, it has to be B' is illogical, but believing that since logic has only increased the questions we have about our universe, perhaps that logic cannot solve this. You also can't say that just because logic may not be able to give an answer that an answer cannot be found. Jumping the gun is illogical, but assuming that logic can provide an answer or, if it can't, that an answer cannot be found is illogical as well.

 

Love is a perfect example of an illogical phenomenon. There is nothing logical about a permanent infatuation with someone else whose flaws you understand and often times cannot stand. There is nothing logical about loving your mother or father if they treat you wrong, or loving a sibling when they've just been born and you know nothing of them. Where's the logic in gay men falling in love when they'd be chastised and alienated from society? There just isn't any. You can't explain love logically yet it's something you've clearly experienced with your wife. Unless you somehow can?

 

So what's to say that logic HAS to account for our creation?

 

Like I said, love is something I've experienced. I've never experienced anything similar with the divine. I'm not big on lending credence to something that I've never experienced, that's pretty much my stance, as I said earlier.

 

 

But do you believe that love can be explained through logic?

 

For the record, I don't believe one can 'experience' God, either.

I don't think you can experience god either. See we're already agreeing!

 

In all seriousness, I think you can. There are chemical processes going on in our brains that we interpret as what we believe to be love. Monogamy is an evolutionarily positive thing, as raising children in a home with two parents is good for the children. So we are predisposed to being in monogamous relationships.

 

Our brains will try to justify these chemical processes in ways that make sense to our conscious brain.

I don't think you can experience god either. See we're already agreeing!

 

In all seriousness, I think you can. There are chemical processes going on in our brains that we interpret as what we believe to be love. Monogamy is an evolutionarily positive thing, as raising children in a home with two parents is good for the children. So we are predisposed to being in monogamous relationships.

 

Our brains will try to justify these chemical processes in ways that make sense to our conscious brain.

 

 

We know something is going on but we can't exactly pinpoint what it is. Human behavior and emotion is full of almosts like that but, for example, we can't come to an agreement on whether some behavioral traits are inherited or learned. Do we know who someone is going to love? We may be able to see parts of the brain spark up when someone sees their lover, but I don't think we'll ever know why it is that that person is their lover. I think there's an extra element in humans that goes far beyond the logical. I don't quite think we're a solvable math problem or that psychologists in the future will be able to determine who we are positively, any more than philosophers will definitively find meaning to life. That leads me to believe that logic doesn't necessarily have to be present in everything and so I don't discredit the notion of a God.

I still don't think an absence of logical explanations makes the existence of god more or less likely. Its one alternative you choose to accept, but it's not something I see any reason to accept.

You've said that you don't think you can really "experience god", and that you're not a Christian.

 

Could you describe what you're talking about when you use the term god then? (realizing that's a huge question but I mean there are a lot of versions... maybe summarize or something?)

 

 

I mean I'm assuming you're not just talking about the architect/deist version, but one that actively steps in and answers prayers, intervenes in human affairs, etc?

Because "love" is a fluid concept, of course it can't be defined/pinpointed. It's a moving target because no 2 people define "love" exactly the same way.

 

But, for example, humans release hormones when you have sex with someone [oxytocin for females and vasopressin for males (sp?)] which make you feel close to that person, and thus encourage monogamy. Other sources of attraction are based, for example, on outside influences, i.e. family, friends, experiences, and those attractions/desires/etc. are ultimately quantifiable as well, even though we can't fully quantify them with the current state of science.

 

As far as I understand it, most, if not nearly all, natural scientists consider human behavior to be [entirely] determined, [quantum mechanical fluctuations notwithstanding,] as in you could freeze the camera and Point X and, given "all" information, you could predict the next instant and the rest of the future [again, only limited by quantum mechanical fluctuations]. I agree with this view.

You've said that you don't think you can really "experience god", and that you're not a Christian.

 

Could you describe what you're talking about when you use the term god then? (realizing that's a huge question but I mean there are a lot of versions... maybe summarize or something?)

 

 

I mean I'm assuming you're not just talking about the architect/deist version, but one that actively steps in and answers prayers, intervenes in human affairs, etc?

 

 

I'm talking about the architecture/deist version. At least, that's the kind of God I believe in. I don't think God intervenes in human affairs; it may not even know that we exist. I'm honestly not sure. There are instances where I look back at important/near fatal moments and think that it was odd that I'd act a certain way, but it was in acting that certain way that I avoided catastrophe.

 

So in essence, I don't have a definitive answer for you. I'm still trying to figure out where I stand on it.

Because "love" is a fluid concept, of course it can't be defined/pinpointed. It's a moving target because no 2 people define "love" exactly the same way.

 

But, for example, humans release hormones when you have sex with someone [oxytocin for females and vasopressin for males (sp?)] which make you feel close to that person, and thus encourage monogamy. Other sources of attraction are based, for example, on outside influences, i.e. family, friends, experiences, and those attractions/desires/etc. are ultimately quantifiable as well, even though we can't fully quantify them with the current state of science.

 

As far as I understand it, most, if not nearly all, natural scientists consider human behavior to be [entirely] determined, [quantum mechanical fluctuations notwithstanding,] as in you could freeze the camera and Point X and, given "all" information, you could predict the next instant and the rest of the future [again, only limited by quantum mechanical fluctuations]. I agree with this view.

 

 

When you say you can't fully quantify it with the current state of science, do you mean that science has not reached a point where it's advanced enough to fully quantify human emotion? To me that sounds analogous to getting closer to finding out where we came from from the Big Bang Theory. Sure, it's more than we know but that doesn't mean it'll get us to the essence of things.

 

I find your second paragraph very hard to believe, unless they've somehow found a way to tap into people's brains and find out what they're thinking rather than saying. You can't put human emotion down on paper from anything more than what others tell you, and we all know that what is said is not always what is thought, meant or implied. And what do you mean by 'all' information? Is that even obtainable? I don't know what quantum mechanical fluctuations are, so could you please explain what that means to me and if these fluctuations are determinable? I'm not going to chastise these scientists without knowing anything about this, but...

I'll do my best after my final exam tomorrow. But look up "Quantum Mechanics" on wikipedia, and you can follow the links to other articles all night. Fascinating stuff.

Because "love" is a fluid concept, of course it can't be defined/pinpointed. It's a moving target because no 2 people define "love" exactly the same way.

 

But, for example, humans release hormones when you have sex with someone [oxytocin for females and vasopressin for males (sp?)] which make you feel close to that person, and thus encourage monogamy. Other sources of attraction are based, for example, on outside influences, i.e. family, friends, experiences, and those attractions/desires/etc. are ultimately quantifiable as well, even though we can't fully quantify them with the current state of science.

 

As far as I understand it, most, if not nearly all, natural scientists consider human behavior to be [entirely] determined, [quantum mechanical fluctuations notwithstanding,] as in you could freeze the camera and Point X and, given "all" information, you could predict the next instant and the rest of the future [again, only limited by quantum mechanical fluctuations]. I agree with this view.

 

 

When you say you can't fully quantify it with the current state of science, do you mean that science has not reached a point where it's advanced enough to fully quantify human emotion? To me that sounds analogous to getting closer to finding out where we came from from the Big Bang Theory. Sure, it's more than we know but that doesn't mean it'll get us to the essence of things.

 

I find your second paragraph very hard to believe, unless they've somehow found a way to tap into people's brains and find out what they're thinking rather than saying. You can't put human emotion down on paper from anything more than what others tell you, and we all know that what is said is not always what is thought, meant or implied. And what do you mean by 'all' information? Is that even obtainable? I don't know what quantum mechanical fluctuations are, so could you please explain what that means to me and if these fluctuations are determinable? I'm not going to chastise these scientists without knowing anything about this, but...

 

I don't know what you mean by "essence." Based on current scientific theories, most scientists no longer feel that there's a missing chunk of things where a supernatural being would be needed to fill in the gap (see Steven Hawking's new book and many books before it), even though some did used to feel that it was a more distinct likelihood.

 

It's not that people think and say different things; it's at a more fundamental level. As I've learned about it, I've come to believe that human behavior is ultimately reducible to the point where it could be simulated "perfectly" with a [ridiculously advanced] computer. The exception to this is the quantum mechanical fluctuations. I'm far from an expert, but essentially, it's effectively an established fact that all matter has a certain probability of being where it seems to be at any given time, and it's less than 100%. It stems from, AFAIK, the indeterminacy of electrons and other such things. I hesitate to speak authoritatively - wikipedia has some really good articles. But the bottom line is that there are small deviations from "expectation," however infrequent they may be (and they are highly infrequent - at least, my car has never disappeared ).

 

I have no idea if any of this is understandable, so I'll quit here. Again, read about it on Wikipedia - you'll be all like 'Whooooooooa." When I first started reading about this stuff, I was like, "Damn, maybe science is the only field worth studying." But then I rationalized that thought process and my decision to go to law school, especially because I love the law and am not very good at science.

You've said that you don't think you can really "experience god", and that you're not a Christian.

 

Could you describe what you're talking about when you use the term god then? (realizing that's a huge question but I mean there are a lot of versions... maybe summarize or something?)

 

 

I mean I'm assuming you're not just talking about the architect/deist version, but one that actively steps in and answers prayers, intervenes in human affairs, etc?

 

 

I'm talking about the architecture/deist version. At least, that's the kind of God I believe in. I don't think God intervenes in human affairs; it may not even know that we exist. I'm honestly not sure. There are instances where I look back at important/near fatal moments and think that it was odd that I'd act a certain way, but it was in acting that certain way that I avoided catastrophe.

 

So in essence, I don't have a definitive answer for you. I'm still trying to figure out where I stand on it.

 

 

no that's fine, and fwiw I think the deist version is much less problematic.

 

and "I'm still trying to figure it out" is a very open and honest answer.