tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post1757308767789471063..comments2023-05-13T09:35:57.871-04:00Comments on Infophilia: Calculating GodInfophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-90258347952477704812007-03-29T17:03:00.000-04:002007-03-29T17:03:00.000-04:00I agree, this is a fantastic article. It systemat...I agree, this is a fantastic article. It systematically takes down every valid argument for believing Deism reasonable through the fine-tuning argument. Although the anthropic principle would have applied here, it is often kind of a universal argument that is overapplied, and it is more impressive to be able to make the point without using it.<BR/><BR/>This argument concludes that there is a higher probability of no god than of God. You invited Deists to explain why they are convinced of the existence of God, so I will explain why I practice Christianity (although in a form very different from the average Christian).<BR/>Some parts of the Bible are reported with a historical nature in the same manner as wars are reported. The wars in our history books are from recorded history that we accept because we have little reason to believe the alternative that people recorded a bunch of lies just to fool future readers of their documents. Another main factor in determining the past is unity. If a mass set of historical documents support one conclusion, we accept it. In the Bible's case, some of the books are not anywhere near this standard. For example, no one knows who wrote Hebrews, bringing the question, "How can so many Christians accept that Hebrews is a divine book if we don't know who wrote it?" You mentioned Genesis, with its two creation stories, as particularly questionable. But, for example, it is generally accepted that Mark was alive at the time of Jesus, and wrote his account of Jesus' life later. Various accounts of his life existed, and scholars at the time picked out the books that they believed were most accurate, discarding others. While in many cases I do not feel they were stringent enough (anyone ever read Revelation?), Mark is an example of a book I follow the teachings of.<BR/><BR/>At this point you might say, why believe something that seems obviously more likely to be false than true? Believing in this provides eternal heaven if you are right, and being kind of stupid if you are wrong. Rejecting this provides a little satisfaction from laughing at the dumb people and not "wasting" your time on a falsehood if you are right, but you have no idea what happens if you are wrong. After looking at various belief systems, I have concluded that most other religions are dumber and their conflicts and ridiculousness make them not worth doing, as you appear to have done with all religions.<BR/>Various psychological studies have shown positive correlations between religiousness (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-3370(199905)36%3A2%3C273%3ARIAUAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H) and good health. This is not to say that God smiting the atheists, but that our beliefs do not need to always coincide with "What is more likely?" Occasionally, our beliefs best coincide with "What will benefit me?" By attacking a problem with personal research, knocking out the Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Islams of the religious spectrum, finding something that seemed the most valid, and understanding the potential benefits, I feel I have taken an actively beneficial approach. I don't generally criticize other people's views, and when it comes to the creation of the universe I would rather believe that a Big Bang occurred then that one of the conflicting Biblical accounts with no basis are correct.<BR/>The problem comes when attackers of well-reasoned valid arguments like "Calculating God" decide to resort to arguments like "evolution is only a theory" and banking on people's inability to grab a dictionary.<BR/><BR/>"The question is worth asking, though, is this argument why they believe in their god themselves? I doubt you'll find many who say that it is (though there are a few Deists who claim this, but no one who believes in a specific god and none of the big proponents of ID). If it isn't, why aren't they using the arguments that convinced them of God to convince us?<BR/>Unless... what convinced them of God were the biases and flaws in human reasoning (that are in fact expected results of evolution) which skeptics have recognized and work to overcome, and they're now trying to mold facts to fit their predetermined theories." Another thing to add to this is, why do so many people emulate their parents in their religious affiliation? If Christianity really is so smart, then why are more people in countries with freedom of religion switching from it than to it? For many it becomes a source of identity, like the sports team you like, which also generally stays constant regardless of whether the New York Yankees winning a baseball game really is a rational thought. Still, many people accept the Bible as truth over more established things such as global warming.<BR/><BR/>An overwhelming amount of Deists regard atheism with contempt when nearly any outside observer (say, someone of a differing form of Deism) would given the two choices, say atheism is more likely to be true. Using a "What is more likely?" approach will lead people to an atheist belief system. However, rational people could differ regarding the "What will benefit me?" question. And in that sense, my presumably unique doctrine works for me, and yours works for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-33951558269347784522007-03-11T21:05:00.000-04:002007-03-11T21:05:00.000-04:00This is probably the best takedown of the fine tun...This is probably the best takedown of the fine tuning argument I've ever seen. Dawkins does a fair job in <I>The God Delusion</I>, but his major field of study is not physics and so it felt somewhat lacking. Yours really tackles the problem head-on and exposes it as wanting. Great 100th post. Here's to 100 more!<BR/><BR/>Though I'm a bit surprised you didn't mention the Very Strong Anthropic Principle. You know, the one that states that the entire purpose of creation is ensure that there is a man in England who spends his time writing Discworld novels, and the fact that Terry Pratchett does just that proves it all true.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.com