Intelligence and God

[Pekka]

Uhmm... superstisious meaning people who avoid like some numbers etc?

How do you come to that conclusion from first establishing that intelligent people are able to recognize patterns etc? So you conclude irrational is intelligence in hardwiring?

In short, what the hell?

[DrS]

A large portion of hardwired intelligence = pattern recognition.

People are not so good at recognizing patterns as non-causal, hence superstition and religion.

So, smarter people may in fact be prone to be more superstitious.

[Nubclear]

Oh look, a DL.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DrS
Not sure what a 'hard' or 'soft' athiest means. I'd argue that it's reasonable to make a negative prediction about theism.

Based off what evidence?

JM

[DrS]

Example: I knew a fellow who told a story about how his previous boss once grabbed him, then suffered a broken arm the next day. The fellow recognized this pattern, and decided it was evidence in favor of a justice-dispensing deity.

[DrS]

Based off what evidence?

Based off of a lack of evidence. In science, absense of evidence is in fact, the definition of evidence of absence.

[Nubclear]

I believe I demonstrated in the other thread that I am, in fact, your god.
Thus, this whole thing is kind of moot anyway

[Meticulous Man]

Both intelligence and God are loads of hooey

[Nubclear]

So is the present Swedish government, but you don't see us complaining.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DrS


Based off of a lack of evidence. In science, absense of evidence is in fact, the definition of evidence of absence.

But that is when evidence could be acquired (like for the Higgs ). For there to be absense of evidence, there must be an experiment or obersvation where evidence would be expected.

So what experiment or observation is there that provides a lack of evidence?

Jon Miller

[Blake]

God is entirely subjective, especially amongst intellectuals.

In the case of "Einstein's God" I think the idea is that God describes something which transcends rational understanding, God != Deity, in particular, not a personal God.

I'm Atheist and not Agnostic for I recognize the nature of god as being unknowable - I cannot know whether or not God exists! Think about this - God as an omnipotent being would have the power to make himself not exist, or to exist and not-exist simultaneously. You can't talk about whether or not God exists! The concepts of existence and non-existence of God are both equally void.

Neither I nor God can prove to I that God exists. Therefore I can never communicate with God and God can never communicate with me. As such, to me a Personal God that does exist is indistinguishable from a Personal God that doesn't exist (I can't know either).

That is the extent of logic - God is unknowable. It then becomes a matter of faith. What does my intuition tell me? No personal God. This intuition cannot be rationalized and is subjective thus the "argument" ends here.
(I said it's stupid! ack!)

As to why I'm hard Atheist? There is no possible thing God can do to prove to me that he exists (the difficulty level is the same as God proving to me that he doesn't exist). This is incompatible with the idea of omnipotence - an omnipotent God SHOULD be able to prove to a mortal that he exists. If there's something God can't do, he aint God!
I assume that an Agnostic has a somewhat lower threshold for "Proof of God's existence", maybe God yelling in their ear "Hey you arrogant little pissant, I The God Almighty Exists!". Maybe blowing up the Sun would do it. Or rearranging the Milky Way Galaxy. Or dying and waking up in Hell. But for me none of these things would constitute proof of God's existence.

I may be hard to impress, but I don't think I'm intellectually dishonest.

[DrS]

The same observations that Keebler Elves don't exist. If something phenomenological is going to be said to exist, there must be some observable (like elves running around, or a trail through a drift chamber).

If your deity isn't phenomenological, then it isn't even false.

[Meticulous Man]

So is the present Swedish government, but you don't see us complaining.

Oh no, why is that?

[Jon Miller]

So there was absense of evidence for the existence of quarks 200 years ago?

Or was it merely that we didn't have the right probes.. and science said nothing (neither for or against) the existence of said quarks.

For another example. Assume that something is part of the natural world. Assume that we will never be able to get evidence of it's existence. I personally think these are both very obvious assumptions, based upon our current understanding btw. (this is also completely seperate from the issue of the existence of God or the supernatural) Does that mean that there is evidence against the existence of things we can't detect in the natural world?

No. It purely means that we don't know... that we are lacking the information.

This is different then Axions or whatever. Since we have theories and places for them to fit, and have looked for them there, and haven't seen them (but I note that there are many who are still looking for them, who still beleive in their existence).

Blake, you say that your atheism rests on your intuition. Many Hard atheists say that it is just logic. As such, you passed at least the first test of intellectual honesty that many hard atheists fail.

JM

[DrS]

So there was absense of evidence for the existence of quarks 200 years ago?

Or was it merely that we didn't have the right probes.. and science said nothing (neither for or against) the existence of said quarks.

Nobody was considering quarks 200 years ago. If they were, the deafult position would have been false, until evidence started accumulating. The question of whether math constitutes evidence (which I think is what you're asking) is a tricky one. I'm undecided, but leaning towards that it does.