War, what is it good for?

[CaptainFritz28]

Just to be clear of the ask... do you mean:

(a) If God is definitely real, and believing this actual reality would improve wellbeing, would I encourage this belief?

or

(b) If God is not real, but nonetheless people's wellbeing would be improved by believing in this falsehood, would I promote it even if I personally believed it to be false?

I think you mean (b) but I'd like to be sure before I answer.

Let's leave God's existence a matter of faith, and answer c "you personally don't believe He exists, but evidence that you believe to be accurate shows that if others believe in Him their lives will be measurably improved".

I am not a liar. I can only advocate for things I think are true.

I can't advocate for a God I think is false, full stop.

Lying is harmful.

Well at least we know you just read bad news sources, when it comes to politics. :D

[Jamiet99uk]

I am not a liar. I can only advocate for things I think are true.

I can't advocate for a God I think is false, full stop.

Lying is harmful.

Can you advocate for the use of placebos in medicine?

I lack sufficient medial knowledge.

Are placebos commonly used in actual medical treatment (outside of homeopathy and other quackery to which I know you object)?

[Jamiet99uk]

Things exist. Existence does not just pop out of nothing.

You are arguing that God popped out of nothing.

God never popped into existence. To pop into existence requires having an origin, when we already stipulated that God is eternal. You assume that God is confined by time, when He is the one who created time, and thus is not constrained by it.

You are arguing that it is possible for things to exist without being created or having an origin. You ascribe that quality to God.

Therefore you believe that some things can exist without their existence being caused by an outside force.

Yes?

[CaptainFritz28]

I am arguing that the laws that apply to our universe (such as tume) do not apply to God.

[Jamiet99uk]

I am arguing that the laws that apply to our universe (such as thyme) do not apply to God.

This is known as "special pleading" - a well-known fallacy.

[Jamiet99uk]

This comes back to my original point that the cosmological argument for the existence of God (which is the argument you are using) is fallacious and does not work.

Your argument is:

1. Everything that exists must have a first cause.
2. The universe exists, therefore something or someone must have caused it.
3. That cause is God.
4. God is special and does not have a first cause.

Pillar #4 of this argument destroys pillar #1, so the entire argument is invalid.

[learnedSloth]

1. Everything that exists must have a first cause.
2. The universe exists, therefore something or someone must have caused it.
3. That cause is God.
4. God is special and does not have a first cause.

Pillar #4 of this argument destroys pillar #1, so the entire argument is invalid.

I know that proponents of the cosmological argument would usually respond that you have misunderstood it, but to me disputing that objection seems unnecessary.

Causalities can be thought of as arrows of a directed graph. Then the points with outgoing arrows are causes, and causes without incoming arrows are first causes.

The only way to make first causes unnecessary is to permit cycles. Then there are groups of causes where any cause causes every cause in the group. Therefore causes in such a group are all or none, which permits lumping them together.

However, rendering such a group as a point would be misleading, because then only the outbound arrows would be visible. It would be indistinguishable from a first cause when all outbound arrows are outgoing. The internal arrows must be denoted somehow. I think a loop would be a quite natural way to mark it without introducing novel syntax. So the group is rendered as a cause that causes itself directly, reflecting that the causes in the group cause themselves at least indirectly. Calling the name of this construct self-cause seems natural enough.

Now the role of self-causes without incoming outbound arrows is similar to that of first causes. I think we can speak of first self-causes. There must be at least one. If I can wrap my head around it I might later explain why God of the Bible fits the bill.

[CaptainFritz28]

I am arguing that the laws that apply to our universe (such as thyme) do not apply to God.

This is known as "special pleading" - a well-known fallacy.

Something must be outside of time. You say that it is a series of infinite universes, I say it is God.

[Octavious]

I am not a liar. I can only advocate for things I think are true.

I can't advocate for a God I think is false, full stop.

Lying is harmful.

Can you advocate for the use of placebos in medicine?

I lack sufficient medial knowledge.

Are placebos commonly used in actual medical treatment (outside of homeopathy and other quackery to which I know you object)?

Very much so. Sometimes they are pure placebos, such as sugar pills, that can be prescribed to children or the mentally frail, but more commonly they are real drugs that the doctor doesn't believe will have any true medical benefit. Prescribing antibiotics for an illness like the flu, for example, will benefit the doctor by making the patient shut up and leave him alone, and benefit the patient by making them feel like they are being taken seriously and treated effectively. Even though the direct impact of antibiotics on flu is nil.

[Jamiet99uk]

1. Everything that exists must have a first cause.
2. The universe exists, therefore something or someone must have caused it.
3. That cause is God.
4. God is special and does not have a first cause.

Pillar #4 of this argument destroys pillar #1, so the entire argument is invalid.

I know that proponents of the cosmological argument would usually respond that you have misunderstood it, but to me disputing that objection seems unnecessary.

Causalities can be thought of as arrows of a directed graph. Then the points with outgoing arrows are causes, and causes without incoming arrows are first causes.

The only way to make first causes unnecessary is to permit cycles. Then there are groups of causes where any cause causes every cause in the group. Therefore causes in such a group are all or none, which permits lumping them together.

However, rendering such a group as a point would be misleading, because then only the outbound arrows would be visible. It would be indistinguishable from a first cause when all outbound arrows are outgoing. The internal arrows must be denoted somehow. I think a loop would be a quite natural way to mark it without introducing novel syntax. So the group is rendered as a cause that causes itself directly, reflecting that the causes in the group cause themselves at least indirectly. Calling the name of this construct self-cause seems natural enough.

Now the role of self-causes without incoming outbound arrows is similar to that of first causes. I think we can speak of first self-causes. There must be at least one. If I can wrap my head around it I might later explain why God of the Bible fits the bill.

Do you believe that the existence of God is a form of the cycle you describe?

[Jamiet99uk]

I am arguing that the laws that apply to our universe (such as thyme) do not apply to God.

This is known as "special pleading" - a well-known fallacy.

Something must be outside of time. You say that it is a series of infinite universes, I say it is God.

Why must something be out of time?

What if time has simply been going on forever?

[Jamiet99uk]

Can you advocate for the use of placebos in medicine?

I lack sufficient medial knowledge.

Are placebos commonly used in actual medical treatment (outside of homeopathy and other quackery to which I know you object)?

Very much so. Sometimes they are pure placebos, such as sugar pills, that can be prescribed to children or the mentally frail, but more commonly they are real drugs that the doctor doesn't believe will have any true medical benefit. Prescribing antibiotics for an illness like the flu, for example, will benefit the doctor by making the patient shut up and leave him alone, and benefit the patient by making them feel like they are being taken seriously and treated effectively. Even though the direct impact of antibiotics on flu is nil.

I think this is a bad example, because the over-use of antibiotics is, as I understand it, leading to strains of antibiotic-resistant viruses evolving.

Therefore a doctor who prescribes antibiotics willy-nilly for illnesses that do not require antibiotics is surely doing a very bad job.

Giving a child a placebo pill to calm them down might be more acceptable I suppose.

[CaptainFritz28]

This is known as "special pleading" - a well-known fallacy.

Something must be outside of time. You say that it is a series of infinite universes, I say it is God.

Why must something be out of time?

What if time has simply been going on forever?

Because time as we define it is confined to our universe. Our universe had an origin. The idea of infinity is not consistent with our temporal definition of tike.

But it doesn't particularly matter how you define it.
Something has existed for eternity. Our universe is not that something. Our universe had an origin. Something outside our universe, which has existed for eternity, must have caused our universe.

[CaptainFritz28]

Giving a child a placebo pill to calm them down might be more acceptable I suppose.

And this is because while in reality it does nothing, it does good because of people's perception of it, yes?

So then, even if in reality Christianity is false (which I don't believe, but will assume for the sake of debate), but because of people's belief in it and perception that it is true it does good, then it should be spread, yes?

[Jamiet99uk]

Giving a child a placebo pill to calm them down might be more acceptable I suppose.

And this is because while in reality it does nothing, it does good because of people's perception of it, yes?

So then, even if in reality Christianity is false (which I don't believe, but will assume for the sake of debate), but because of people's belief in it and perception that it is true it does good, then it should be spread, yes?

I am not convinced that having people falsely believe in non-existent Gods is good for them, and I do not think that such nonsense should be promoted.

[Jamiet99uk]

Something must be outside of time. You say that it is a series of infinite universes, I say it is God.

Why must something be out of time?

What if time has simply been going on forever?

Because time as we define it is confined to our universe. Our universe had an origin. The idea of infinity is not consistent with our temporal definition of tike.

But it doesn't particularly matter how you define it.
Something has existed for eternity. Our universe is not that something. Our universe had an origin. Something outside our universe, which has existed for eternity, must have caused our universe.

Only if you regard time as a strictly linear concept, and only if you define it as having had to have a beginning. You are assuming these things; I beg to differ.

[CaptainFritz28]

Giving a child a placebo pill to calm them down might be more acceptable I suppose.

And this is because while in reality it does nothing, it does good because of people's perception of it, yes?

So then, even if in reality Christianity is false (which I don't believe, but will assume for the sake of debate), but because of people's belief in it and perception that it is true it does good, then it should be spread, yes?

I am not convinced that having people falsely believe in non-existent Gods is good for them, and I do not think that such nonsense should be promoted.

How about people "falsely believing in non-existent Gods" bringing about liberal democracy, political stability, religious liberty, mass education, and other core principles of modern liberty, not only in the U.S. but all over the globe?

Source 1:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41495078
http://www.newhumanityinstitute.org/pdf-articles/Robert-Woodberry-MissionaryRootsOfLiberalDemocracy.pdf

"In particular, conversionary Protestants (CPs) were a crucial catalyst initiating the development and spread of religious liberty, mass education, mass printing, newspapers, voluntary organizations, most major colonial reforms, and the codification of legal protections for nonwhites in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries." (p. 244-245)

Notice that last bit, emboldened for emphasis... that's right, civil rights are due to Christian influence.

Source 2:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238430726_The_Role_of_Protestantism_in_Democratic_Consolidation_Among_Transitional_States

"Findings indicate that transitional states that have higher Protestant populations are more likely to have higher levels of voice and accountability, political stability, citizenship empowerment, and civil society pluralism."

[CaptainFritz28]

And this is because while in reality it does nothing, it does good because of people's perception of it, yes?

So then, even if in reality Christianity is false (which I don't believe, but will assume for the sake of debate), but because of people's belief in it and perception that it is true it does good, then it should be spread, yes?

I am not convinced that having people falsely believe in non-existent Gods is good for them, and I do not think that such nonsense should be promoted.

How about people "falsely believing in non-existent Gods" bringing about liberal democracy, political stability, religious liberty, mass education, and other core principles of modern liberty, not only in the U.S. but all over the globe?

Source 1:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41495078
http://www.newhumanityinstitute.org/pdf-articles/Robert-Woodberry-MissionaryRootsOfLiberalDemocracy.pdf

"In particular, conversionary Protestants (CPs) were a crucial catalyst initiating the development and spread of religious liberty, mass education, mass printing, newspapers, voluntary organizations, most major colonial reforms, and the codification of legal protections for nonwhites in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries." (p. 244-245)

Notice that last bit, emboldened for emphasis... that's right, civil rights are due to Christian influence.

Source 2:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238430726_The_Role_of_Protestantism_in_Democratic_Consolidation_Among_Transitional_States

"Findings indicate that transitional states that have higher Protestant populations are more likely to have higher levels of voice and accountability, political stability, citizenship empowerment, and civil society pluralism."

Or that religion having a negative affect on warfare and violence?

Source 1:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305485172_More_Religion_Less_Justification_for_Violence_A_Cross-National_Analysis

"The current research generally suggests that religion reduces the extent to which individuals are willing to express that violence against others is justified." (p. 173)

"Contrary to popular notions that religion causes violence, frequency of prayer, 8mportance of religion, and importance of God were negatively related to justification of violence." (p. 159)

Source 2:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26651615

"It is apparent that H1 is supported, as different religions exert different effects on probability to initiate an interstate armed conflict. The correlation of Christianity is negative and Islam positive, with Buddhism having no statistical significance." (p. 808)

"GRP" in the following quotation means "Government Religious Preference."

"When the threshold for "using" force is lowest (HiAct = 12+), a state with the median nonzero Christian GRP (4.38) is 37 percent less likely to initiate an interstate armed conflict than a state with no Christian GRP. A state with the maximum Christian GRP (8.13) is 54 percent less likely. In each model, the graph shows a steady decline in the probability to use force as the Christian GRP score increases. Table 1 further shows that the constraining effect of Christianity
grows stronger as the threshold for "using force" is raised." (p. 811)

[CaptainFritz28]

Why must something be out of time?

What if time has simply been going on forever?

Because time as we define it is confined to our universe. Our universe had an origin. The idea of infinity is not consistent with our temporal definition of tike.

But it doesn't particularly matter how you define it.
Something has existed for eternity. Our universe is not that something. Our universe had an origin. Something outside our universe, which has existed for eternity, must have caused our universe.

Only if you regard time as a strictly linear concept, and only if you define it as having had to have a beginning. You are assuming these things; I beg to differ.

As I said, it doesn't particularly matter how you define it. All you've said here is that something can have existed for eternity. Which was your problem with God in the first place. You've just disproven your own argument against God.

[Jamiet99uk]

Because time as we define it is confined to our universe. Our universe had an origin. The idea of infinity is not consistent with our temporal definition of tike.

But it doesn't particularly matter how you define it.
Something has existed for eternity. Our universe is not that something. Our universe had an origin. Something outside our universe, which has existed for eternity, must have caused our universe.

Only if you regard time as a strictly linear concept, and only if you define it as having had to have a beginning. You are assuming these things; I beg to differ.

As I said, it doesn't particularly matter how you define it. All you've said here is that something can have existed for eternity. Which was your problem with God in the first place. You've just disproven your own argument against God.

Ahem, no. Nice try.

I was not making an argument against God. I was demonstrating why your argument was based on a logical fallacy.