Live data from Hacker News

Poll: How many HN readers are believers?

news.ycombinator.com

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: Poll: How many HN readers are believers?

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> To try and dress up either atheism or theism in rational arguments is absurd Why? I know plenty of philosophers that are great with rational arguments that spend their time in atheism or theism. I know several who believe in God or some kind of higher power simply because of free will. Can you give a definition of free will? Can you provide evidence of it or prove or disprove it even if we can agree what it is tha…

> Why? For the reason I highlighted in the post you replied to. You're welcome to explain why you think I'm wrong, but saying 'I believe X and so do my friends' doesn't satisfy.

I'll be the first to admit that I've heard a lot of irrational arguments from people trying to advocate or disprove a particular religion. But you're saying that because you've only heard or explored irrational arguments for theism or atheism that all arguments for theism or atheism are irrational. Your argument is irrational.

Re: Poll: How many HN readers are believers?

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you've made up your mind, but that doesn't negate the reality that the existence of God has been debated for thousands of years. It seems a little disingenuous to say that there is no definition of God. Google will even give you one if you search for: define God. Wikipedia holds that "In Classical theism, God is characterized as the metaphysically ultimate being (the first, timeless, absolutely simple, and so…

> It seems a little disingenuous to say that there is no definition of God. There's no useful definition. Defining something as being 'metaphysically ultimate' doesn't describe any of its properties. > What was the definition of oxygen before it was discovered? How about dark matter? Both oxygen and dark matter were hypothesised based on observations. The definitions suggested by those hypotheses were then tested (da…

What you're describing could easily be said about gravity. If you really start pressing physicists on this subject it gets muddy really quickly, even the definition (don't just tell me what gravity does or the effect it has, tell me what it is). One of the going theories involves gravitons, a massless particle with a spin-2 boson. Many physicists posit that the graviton itself is unobservable. In that sense its "properties" are very difficult, if not impossible, to really nail down. That does not change the fact that gravitational force is experienced and responsible for a great deal of work in the universe.

We observe a force, we hypothesize about it based on those observations and we try to build tests for those theories. That's my point with the free will, mind-body problem, substance dualism argument. We observe free will, we build rules for our civilization around it, each of us can observe its existence. Admittedly, some people are willing to throw it out, argue against it, claim that we have no "free will" that it is merely action and reaction, we can only do what we are biologically programmed to do (that destroys most civilization's systems of rewards and punishment, btw) and I would say that most people, based off of their observable experience with their own minds and actions are unwilling to accept such a notion. Some people try to explain it away by saying that it's nothing more than randomness, like the kind we observe in quantum mechanics. I would say that most people are not inclined to equate "randomness" to "free will" either.

If you observe free will and accept its existence you now have a great deal of work to do in order to explain it, hypothesize about it, test it, etc. especially if you are only accepting materialism in the traditional sense. This, like many scientists have in the past when observing strange matter (anti-matter, neutrinos, gravitons, etc), leads many people to decide that there must be some other "force" or "power" outside of the observable material world in order to make sense of one's ability to think, act, react freely.

Re: Poll: How many HN readers are believers?

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you've made up your mind, but that doesn't negate the reality that the existence of God has been debated for thousands of years. It seems a little disingenuous to say that there is no definition of God. Google will even give you one if you search for: define God. Wikipedia holds that "In Classical theism, God is characterized as the metaphysically ultimate being (the first, timeless, absolutely simple, and so…

> It seems a little disingenuous to say that there is no definition of God. There's no useful definition. Defining something as being 'metaphysically ultimate' doesn't describe any of its properties. > What was the definition of oxygen before it was discovered? How about dark matter? Both oxygen and dark matter were hypothesised based on observations. The definitions suggested by those hypotheses were then tested (da…

Meditate on free will for a while with our friend Krishna and when you "know" that materialism can not be reconciled with free will, I'll let you know where you can send my porsche. :)

The smartest people I know are at least agnostic, recognizing that something else is going on but struggling with the ability to identify it. I don't trust the atheists, to me it means they haven't thought about it enough or they think we're all bio-robo-zombies (sounds like a good B movie). If you think we're all bio-robo-zombies, I get worried that you might be a bio-robo-zombie.

And I'll be damned if I'm gonna trust a bio-robo-zombie with this decision. (See what I did there? Oh, come on that was pretty good. ~sigh~... this is why no one invites me to parties)

Re: Poll: How many HN readers are believers?

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? For the reason I highlighted in the post you replied to. You're welcome to explain why you think I'm wrong, but saying 'I believe X and so do my friends' doesn't satisfy.

I'll be the first to admit that I've heard a lot of irrational arguments from people trying to advocate or disprove a particular religion. But you're saying that because you've only heard or explored irrational arguments for theism or atheism that all arguments for theism or atheism are irrational. Your argument is irrational.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Don't mistake me for an atheist.

I'm saying that without the ability to even vaguely define what a "God" is the question "does God exist?" is a non-question.

Sure you can define God as the 'metaphysically ultimate being' but that's a cop-out definition that means nothing. 'Ultimate' just means there isn't another one after that... ranked assumedly by some magical badassery rating.

I might as well ask you "is there a Fnooob?" on the basis that Fnooob is the metaphysically penultimate being. You have no basis on which to answer the question because the question is nonsense.

We're all familiar with stories about various gods because we've been fed them since childhood, and that familiarity makes us think we know what they are, but we really don't.

Re: Poll: How many HN readers are believers?

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems a little disingenuous to say that there is no definition of God. There's no useful definition. Defining something as being 'metaphysically ultimate' doesn't describe any of its properties. > What was the definition of oxygen before it was discovered? How about dark matter? Both oxygen and dark matter were hypothesised based on observations. The definitions suggested by those hypotheses were then tested (da…

Meditate on free will for a while with our friend Krishna and when you "know" that materialism can not be reconciled with free will, I'll let you know where you can send my porsche. :) The smartest people I know are at least agnostic, recognizing that something else is going on but struggling with the ability to identify it. I don't trust the atheists, to me it means they haven't thought about it enough or they think…

You seem to be mistaking me for an atheist.

Re: Poll: How many HN readers are believers?

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems a little disingenuous to say that there is no definition of God. There's no useful definition. Defining something as being 'metaphysically ultimate' doesn't describe any of its properties. > What was the definition of oxygen before it was discovered? How about dark matter? Both oxygen and dark matter were hypothesised based on observations. The definitions suggested by those hypotheses were then tested (da…

What you're describing could easily be said about gravity. If you really start pressing physicists on this subject it gets muddy really quickly, even the definition (don't just tell me what gravity does or the effect it has, tell me what it is). One of the going theories involves gravitons, a massless particle with a spin-2 boson. Many physicists posit that the graviton itself is unobservable. In that sense its "prop…

> What you're describing could easily be said about gravity.

We can observe gravitational lensing. We can measure the differences between gravitation force exerted by the Earth. We can calculate gravity well enough to slingshot probes across the solar system to other planets. Sure, we don't know its fundamental cause but we can define it by its effects. You cannot do that with "God", or gods, or gaian omni-spirits.

> We observe free will

How?

Post reply on HN