Prove me wrong: there is no God

[MikeNovack]

...why do you continue to assume I would consider all religiosity "false", or more to the point, useless?

Oh. So you think Judaism is the true religion? Then for you, it would be Judaism that forms your ethics, and the ethics are grounded in the nature of HaShem.

But secularism still can't ground an ethic.

It is YOU who think of religions in terms of there being one true religion.

I do not, and as a matter of fact, Judaism does not*. In any case, I am much more interested in how religions are USEFUL for humans than if any of them are TRUE (in the sense you use that).

* Judaism is concerned with how JEWS relate to God. Not concerned with how anybody else does.

[Immanuel Can]

...why do you continue to assume I would consider all religiosity "false", or more to the point, useless?

Oh. So you think Judaism is the true religion? Then for you, it would be Judaism that forms your ethics, and the ethics are grounded in the nature of HaShem.

But secularism still can't ground an ethic.

It is YOU who think of religions in terms of there being one true religion.

So do you, though you don't know you do.

Do you think opposite claims can be simultaneously true? Can Jews be "The Chosen Nation" and also, as per Islam, "accursed infidels," and as per Atheist secularism, "deluded fools"? Only one of those, at most can be true at the same time. So you're going to have to pick.

So yeah, you do think of there being one truth, in regard to religion.

[MikeNovack]

Oh. So you think Judaism is the true religion? Then for you, it would be Judaism that forms your ethics, and the ethics are grounded in the nature of HaShem.

But secularism still can't ground an ethic.

It is YOU who think of religions in terms of there being one true religion.

So do you, though you don't know you do.
........
So yeah, you do think of there being one truth, in regard to religion.

Not only do I not think of there being one truth in matters of religion, but I don't even consider "truth" as the important question. When I evaluate a religion, compare religions, it will be in terms of "how does this religion help the people who believe in it lead better lives?" "Be better people?", etc.

I don't consider "truth" because religion is outside of true/false evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

It is YOU who think of religions in terms of there being one true religion.

So do you, though you don't know you do.
........
So yeah, you do think of there being one truth, in regard to religion.

Not only do I not think of there being one truth in matters of religion, but I don't even consider "truth" as the important question.

Oooh. Let's see that. That will be fun.

So you don't believe in truth, eh? So Judaism is not true? And is your sort of religious Relativism true?

When I evaluate a religion, compare religions, it will be in terms of "how does this religion help the people who believe in it lead better lives?" "Be better people?", etc.

Well, you don't KNOW what a "better person" is. You think you do, because it seems you take it for granted he's a Jewish-style individual. But prove that he's not an Islamist. Prove he's not a Nazi.

I don't consider "truth" because religion is outside of true/false evidence.

That's only a sneaky way of saying, "It's all false, so none of it matters anyway."

Let me ask you, though...is that, in your view, more true than what I believe? Or do you still regard truth as irrelevant?

[MikeNovack]

That's only a sneaky way of saying, "It's all false, so none of it matters anyway."

Let me ask you, though...is that, in your view, more true than what I believe? Or do you still regard truth as irrelevant?

No, it is NOT the same as "it's all false". I could no more expect to prove a religion false than to prove it true.

It IS, however saying true or false doesn't matter, judge by the effect on people's lives. If you believe that God will reward you for good actions and punish you for bad actions with the joys of heaven and the pains of hell, and if/when you do wrong, will forgive you so that you can change your ways to now do right AND this causes you to perform good actions, have peace within, etc. then I don't give a damn whether true or false. It is USEFUL.

IC, explain why, if there actually was one KNOWABLE TRUTH about God/gods don't you think by now it would have been discovered (that there would not be disagreement about what that truth was). As somebody who has studied "comparative religions" I see no such universal agreement.

Yes I understand, you have belief/faith that you do know the one TRUTH. That is not contradicting what I am saying. Surely you see that others have very different belief/faith that you consider false.

[Immanuel Can]

...true or false doesn't matter, judge by the effect on people's lives.

But you can't. You can't unless you already know what a "good effect" or a "bad effect" looks like, and that's going to depend on your culture and ideology. So a "good" Somali warlord looks very different from a "good" Hassidic Jew.

You're taking your own preferences for granted, as if everybody believed in them. But they don't. And without a meta-system to judge all other systems, you don't know what "good" and "bad" are.

IC, explain why, if there actually was one KNOWABLE TRUTH about God/gods don't you think by now it would have been discovered (that there would not be disagreement about what that truth was).

What makes you think it hasn't happened?

As somebody who has studied "comparative religions" I see no such universal agreement.

"Universal agreement" and "truth" are very different things. At one time, there was "universal agreement" that the earth is flat.

[MikeNovack]

IC, explain why, if there actually was one KNOWABLE TRUTH about God/gods don't you think by now it would have been discovered (that there would not be disagreement about what that truth was).

A) What makes you think it hasn't happened?

As somebody who has studied "comparative religions" I see no such universal agreement.

B) "Universal agreement" and "truth" are very different things. At one time, there was "universal agreement" that the earth is flat.

A) Because I see people of other beliefs and faiths not agreeing with you about this truth.

B) Well actually, that is a silly notion, since pretty much all people living by the sea and seeing ships come and go knew not flat*. But I'm not talking about universal belief about the truth (about god/gods) making it true. I'm saying there is not agreement in the first place.Agreement => truth has nothing to do with disagreement => cannot all be true

Now, about judging goodness. Sorry, but that's the human condition. You have nothing better to go by than your own judgement of that. So yes, I have to judge the effect/usefulness of religions that way. However, IC, I would not count the Somali warlord against Islam differently than I counted a Christian dictator/warlord against Christianity -- or say count Tokugawa Ieyasu against Buddhism. I would simply note that these religions do not seem to prevent such behavior.

* About flat vs round --- As far as we know, all people living at the sea shore made the observation that as objects became more distant, they disappeared first from the bottom, and as they approached, became visible from the top down. And from this drew the obvious conclusion about the shape of the surface. << if a flat surface, the whole object would simply become larger/smaller as it approached/departed >>

[Immanuel Can]

IC, explain why, if there actually was one KNOWABLE TRUTH about God/gods don't you think by now it would have been discovered (that there would not be disagreement about what that truth was).

A) What makes you think it hasn't happened?

As somebody who has studied "comparative religions" I see no such universal agreement.

B) "Universal agreement" and "truth" are very different things. At one time, there was "universal agreement" that the earth is flat.

A) Because I see people of other beliefs and faiths not agreeing with you about this truth.

Then your assumption is, "If God had revealed anything, He would be obligated to reveal it in such a way that all people would have no choice but to believe the same thing." Otherwise, disbelief merely because people disagree would be absurd.

However, why should we assume that premise? Could not God speak to a "Chosen People," and thereby even reveal Himself to the world, by extension through them? And if He did, why would we assume that "no universal agreement" meant anything? There would be doubtless those who would choose to disbelieve, no matter what God revealed, unless He deprived them of free will.

So your objection does not warrant your skeptical conclusion. In fact, it's another non-sequitur. There's no reason to take a lack of "universal agreement" to tell us anything in particular about that.

Now, about judging goodness. Sorry, but that's the human condition. You have nothing better to go by than your own judgement of that.

So will you judge the Islamist terrorist? He is "good" according to Islamism. And no doubt, he feels you're a horrible person for being a Westernized Jew. So what is to make his assessment wrong, and yours right?

I mean, I agree that it IS right. But I don't think you've got the right reasoning for WHY it's right.

As for religions "preventing behaviour," I know of none that can do that. Not even Islam, which tries as hard as it can to succeed. I think, instead, what they do is tell people what they SHOULD do, but leave it to them as to whether or not they do it. They advise conduct; they do not force it. And they can't be blamed for those who choose to disobey that advice.

Thus, we have to judge them on what they command or instruct...not on the conduct of those who fail to obey them. Would you not agree? After all, if Judaism were judged by the conduct of Manasseh, Ahab, Jeffrey Epstein or Karl Marx, we might well accuse Judaism of failing to "prevent" their bad behaviour. Would that be fair?

[Gary Childress]

Being a Religious scholar and a Hollywood film critic suddenly seem very similar to me.

[MikeNovack]

Persons A, B, and C all believe respectively X, Y, and Z are the truth. X, Y, and Z are mutually incompatible.

At LEAST two of the three must be incorrect, and possibly all three. THAT is what I mean by uncertainty of religious truth. IC, you have belief/faith that your understanding of the truth is correct, but so do A, B, and C.

[Immanuel Can]

Persons A, B, and C all believe respectively X, Y, and Z are the truth. X, Y, and Z are mutually incompatible.

At LEAST two of the three must be incorrect, and possibly all three. THAT is what I mean by uncertainty of religious truth. IC, you have belief/faith that your understanding of the truth is correct, but so do A, B, and C.

You're mixing issues again, Mike. You've slid into a category error.

"Is X, Y or Z true?" Is a question about truth, about facts.

"Does A, B, or C know?" is an epistemological question, a question about what we know or don't know about what's true.

The fact that A, B, or C, or all three, may not know that X is true, is not going to mean X is not true, or less true. The truth will be the truth, independent of all human knowing or not knowing. A factual question will not be undermined by an epistemological problem. It's quite possible that A knows X, and what A knows is true.

But sometimes, one has to be right. And that's interesting.

[Greatest I am]

On true. Whatever that means.

The Bible tells me that whatever I discern or say of God is likely a lie.

It describes God as unknowable, unfathomable and works in mysterious ways.

That is a description of us as well if born in his image.

Nice that before that God, I am God. I am my own Lord and Master.

I am brighter God and so are most of us.

More important, we are more moral that the genocidal Gods and their followers.

Sanity demands it.

[Immanuel Can]

It describes God as unknowable, unfathomable and works in mysterious ways.

Actually, it uses none of these phrases, and does not say these things. You've imbibed too much pop theology.

[Greatest I am]

It describes God as unknowable, unfathomable and works in mysterious ways.

Actually, it uses none of these phrases, and does not say these things. You've imbibed too much pop theology.

I know how to use a biblical search engine.

Which term draws a blank for you?

I have this nose ring I can gift you.

[Immanuel Can]

It describes God as unknowable, unfathomable and works in mysterious ways.

Actually, it uses none of these phrases, and does not say these things. You've imbibed too much pop theology.

I know how to use a biblical search engine.

Then you know these terms are not in there.

God's ways are said to be "unfathomable," but God is said to be "known" and "knowable": and "God works in mysterious ways" is a non-Biblical platitude, not a Biblical claim at all.