I can't get even as far as "does God exist". You lost me at "God".

[eomer]

I don't understand any concept of God that makes sense enough to then try to decide if one (or more) exists. Related to this, I don't understand the concept of supernatural.

My position is that the definition of nature is everything that exists. That leaves no possibility for anything to be supernatural, by definition. If some entity exists and it is able to do things in some way then that entity and the things it can do are natural. If one tries to move anything outside of nature then nature no longer has a coherent definition.

So to me the whole conversation of "does God exist" is incoherent. Delusional, one might say.

[cbayer]

1. That's great. Glad you found your place and have your answers. (edited)

It probably feels good to be so positive about what you believe and don't believe.

Are you using delusional in a medical or colloquial way here? Either way, I don't know how a conversation can be delusional, unless you are dealing with a folie a deux.

By the way, do you consider your wife to be delusional?

[eomer]

3. Not delusional in a medical way. The other way.

I mean delusional (almost) as defined here:

An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument.

But that definition is missing a nuance that I think is required - it ought to clarify that "what is generally accepted as reality of rational argument" is not necessarily whatever has the most popular support or followers but rather is what is accepted by those who are thinking rationally about it.

Regarding my wife, it is a source of pain. Yes, I do think she is delusional by the definition I just gave. When our relationship began there were no signs that she was religious at all. We married and had kids together. As they were growing she led us to join a Catholic parish. I joined as an "out" atheist and we were fairly active. Our kids went to the school at the parish for a couple of years. A few years later we left the church and the RCC largely because of the child sexual abuse. A few years after that my wife started searching for a church. We were having difficulties and on the verge of splitting when I found the UU and suggested that we go there together. So it being a safe place for all beliefs is the reason we are there. It also may be partly the reason we've managed to stay together.

This group, on the other hand, is not a safe space where people come because of a welcoming policy that says that their beliefs will not be challenged. On DU that would be the Interfaith Group. This group is a place where I can come and say what I really think without hurting my wife's feelings - she would never come here and I would never recommend that she do, knowing her and how she would relate. If anyone else would be offended by people saying what they really think about religion then they should not be here either, they should perhaps try the Interfaith group. Unless it's more important for them to participate here even if they are offended. In other words, it's their choice. I think it's good that these different spaces exist so that people have places to go that they each need in their own way.

[cbayer]

4. That's more of a clinical than a colloquial definition.

One of the reasons that it does not really make any sense in terms of religion is this part:

what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument.

It is not generally accepted as reality that there is no god and there is not a sound rational argument for there not being a god. You are setting some standard of "those who are thinking rationally about it", which would most certainly include you and exclude all those irrational theists. My, my.

So I would say that the use of the word to describe people's belief in god is simply an inflammatory way of saying that they are not dealing with reality and are not rational. Neither of those things has any basis in fact. It's simply an attack.

Do you tell your wife you think she is delusional? Have you suggested that she do something about it, like get treatment?

I'm very, very happy for you that you were able to find something in the UU church that was meaningful to both of you. One of the things I like best about the UU's is there tolerance, acceptance and understanding of all kinds of beliefs and lack of beliefs. I suspect calling believers delusional would not go over all that well there.

It is interesting that you would not want you wife to come here, knowing that much of what is said is highly offensive to people with religious beliefs. There are actually DU rules about religion and you really don't have the right to say anything you want about it. People whine a lot about being persecuted for their lack of beliefs, but, in fact, they are merely held to the standards of the site which prohibit bigotry against the religious (and non-religious).

[eomer]

5. The gist of it is the question of what is reality and what is rational.

And I'm just being honest in saying I don't see any basis for including God in what is reality and what is rational - in fact I haven't even heard a definition of God that I can make any sense of. The conversation makes no sense to me. In my honest opinion it is incoherent. People who have a conversation that is incoherent but take it seriously do seem delusional to me, even if they are in the majority, and even if they are my wife.

[cbayer]

6. And you don't have to include god in your reality.

What's not rational is taking the position that you are right and those who do not share your position are not only wrong, but delusional.

No one here want to convince you that there is a god. No one here really wants to have that conversation with you. I honestly don't think anyone here cares whether you are a theist or an atheists.

However, it does not appear that you don't care about what others believe. You seem pretty driven to show that they are wrong, even though you have absolutely no evidence other than your own lack of beliefs.

[eomer]

7. What I'm driven to do is to say what I think. I'm also fine if that influences someone.

There are very few places where I can safely do that. This is one of them and I appreciate it being here.

If someone else thinks I've shown something (or if they don't) that's up to them. If I influence someone then that's fine, good even. I assume that most of us have that as one of our motives for participating here. Don't you?

[cbayer]

8. Why is it unsafe to say what you think elsewhere?

Do you think that the theists here are equally entitled to try and "influence" others?

[eomer]

9. It's unsafe elsewhere because there are repercussions.

And of course theists are equally entitled to say here what they think about God and religion and I would think it is understood by everyone that influencing what others think is likely part of everyone's motive for posting here. So yes, of course.

[cbayer]

10. I agree that influencing others is a big motivator for

participating in a site like this.

I would like to see less anti-theism and more understanding/tolerance of those who may not share one's beliefs or lack of beliefs.

I think anti-theism is toxic and should be challenged as such.

It is sad that you are unable to speak openly in real life. You are generally thoughtful and not uncivil. You are the kind of person that could change some ignorant attitudes about atheists….

unless, of course, you call believers delusional, lol.

[eomer]

11. It's interesting that the word evokes such a strong response.

I don't know whether that's because the clinical meaning spills over as connotation for the other definition. Because I think it should be obvious that most atheists think that theists have gone outside the lines of what is real and rational. So is it just the word that people are reacting to? Why would that be if the word just means what we already knew that atheists thought?

It seems if we focus on the substance that we will all agree that this is just the essential difference of opinion between atheists and theists. So each side surely needs to be able to voice their side of that difference. Should we ban the use of this word and make atheists spell it out some other way? For me the word makes an important contribution - it says that theists have ventured off somewhere that has no rational basis, no basis in reality. That's all it says, to me, and that seems like a valid opinion to hold and to voice.

[cbayer]

12. It evokes such a strong response because it is all too often used in the clinical

context and there are far too many who believe that (see currently posted poll about all religious people being mentally ill).

It's bigotry at it's ugliest, both towards religious believers and those with psychiatric illness.

I think the only thing that is obvious about "most atheists" is that they do not have a belief in god. Any further description of them are descriptions of subset. I do not believe that most atheists feel that theists have gone outside the line of what is real and rational. But clearly there is a subset that do, and you are apparently a member of that subset.

You can't speak for atheists. You represent only yourself.

Calling people who have different beliefs than you mentally ill is wrong on many levels. You are extremely judgmental about believers, claiming that they have "ventured off somewhere that has no rational basis, no basis in reality".

You are essentially calling about 80% of the people on this earth psychiatrically disturbed. It's not valid, but I guess you have the right to voice it.

[eomer]

13. It seems to me that you're now the one saying that people are mentally ill.

You seem to be saying that people believing something without a rational basis is mental illness. I'm saying that people believing something without a rational basis is by definition delusion but I'm saying nothing more, nothing about mental illness.

There are definitely people who say they believe in God as only a matter of faith, without any rational basis. Are you saying those people are mentally ill? I'm not.

[cbayer]

14. No, I am merely making a rhetorical point.

There is no cause to call people mentally ill unless you are a professional charged with evaluating them.

Those that do it under other circumstances are out of line.

[Goblinmonger]

15. "it's bigotry at its ugliest"

Just sayin'.

[Htom Sirveaux]

16. You don't understand, therefore it's delusional?

Why not ask the person in question to help you understand, rather than pushing them away through declaring something "delusional" without trying to understand things from their point of view?

[eomer]

17. I have asked. That was just a shortened way of saying it.

The fuller way would have been to say that I've never heard anyone explain it in a way that seemed to have any coherent meaning. Maybe someone will and I'm still listening. But that's where it stands for me to date.

[Htom Sirveaux]

18. I think when people say "supernatural" they mean there has to be

something more than space/time and the events it contains, if certain features of of space/time are to be explained. Things like "why is there space/time in the first place?" or "how can space/time continue to be both stable and changing?" An explanation of those things, if they have one, would be prior to space/time. Being prior to space/time, it would not be a material explanation, since matter involves taking up space in its definition, and you can't take up space if there is no space to take up.

But whatever this cause is, it's something we do not experience in the way we experience things around us. We have no frame of reference for something that doesn't rely on space/time for its existence. So it is indeed mysterious. But the claim is not that it doesn't exist, so using your definition of natural, what I'm talking about would be natural, too (for you, natural and existence appear to be synonyms). It would just be unlike any other natural thing we've experienced. Hence why people tend to put it in a category of its own, beyond the "natural" of space/time.

[eomer]

19. Very interesting stuff, not sure we're talking about God however.

Some similarly interesting stuff:

In his 2003 NY Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the Multiverse, author and cosmologist, Paul Davies, offers a variety of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.
— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse

Taking cosmic inflation as a popular case in point, George Ellis, writing in August 2011, provides a balanced criticism of not only the science, but as he suggests, the scientific philosophy, by which multiverse theories are generally substantiated. He, like most cosmologists, accepts Tegmark's level I "domains", even though they lie far beyond the cosmological horizon. Likewise, the multiverse of cosmic inflation is said to exist very far away. It would be so far away, however, that it's very unlikely any evidence of an early interaction will be found. He argues that for many theorists, the lack of empirical testability or falsifiability is not a major concern. “Many physicists who talk about the multiverse, especially advocates of the string landscape, do not care much about parallel universes per se. For them, objections to the multiverse as a concept are unimportant. Their theories live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing.” Although he believes there's little hope that will ever be possible, he grants that the theories on which the speculation is based, are not without scientific merit. He concludes that multiverse theory is a “productive research program”:

As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here… In looking at this concept, we need an open mind, though not too open. It is a delicate path to tread. Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is.
— George Ellis, Scientific American, Does the Multiverse Really Exist?

Occam's razor
Proponents and critics disagree about how to apply Occam's razor. Critics argue that to postulate a practically infinite number of unobservable universes just to explain our own seems contrary to Occam's razor. In contrast, proponents argue that, in terms of Kolmogorov complexity, the proposed multiverse is simpler than a single idiosyncratic universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Non-scientific_claims

As George Ellis said, &quot n)othing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation", but I don't see here any justification for saying that any of this is God. Hopefully a scientist will constrain her/him self to looking for scientific explanations for everything there is to be explained. How God comes in is still unsupported, as far as I can see.

[Htom Sirveaux]

20. Well, I hope at least I've offered some tiny insight into the idea of the supernatural. n/t

[eomer]

21. Not sure there is an answer for me there. That seems like just the God of the gaps.

That the universe (or multiverse, for those who prefer) has aspects or things that are (some may always be) beyond our grasp or understanding. But they are still just part of the universe, not God as far as I can see. What definition of God are you using and how is any of that related to it?

[Htom Sirveaux]

22. What does "God of the gaps" mean to you?

I'm defining God as an intelligent agent and creator, the one always existing thing that is the source of all other existing things and the laws that govern them. The stuff I listed is indeed part of the universe, but the universe could have been nothing but chaos, or the unchanging order of one static image, or indeed it could have not existed at all. So we can coherently ask the question of what is the nature of a cause that could bring our universe into existence versus any of those other options.

[eomer]

23. I don't see coherence in that question.

I think the crux of difference I have with what you've said is that the definition of universe that we started with was *everything*. Then you next set something outside the universe. So what's your definition of universe then? If it's something less than everything then you're just talking about natural processes that may happen to be beyond our understanding. If you want to define universe as something less than everything then make a new term, call it universe++, and define that as *everything*. Nothing that's part of universe++ is God as far as I can see because it's just part of the same everything that we're part of.

God of the gaps means just what you're doing - taking things that are really just part of nature and calling them God because they are beyond our understanding (now or forever).