You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I don’t think you choose to have belief
This is quite hard to pin down, I remember thinking it was all bullshit at church from a young age, and it took me until I was 10 or 11 to be brave enough to express it. Did I decide or was my lack of faith hard wired?
I am happy for any of you to delude yourselves, but please do not think christianity should be protected from the derision and contempt it richly deserves to recieve.
I think there's a distinction to be made between a religion and abuses committed in its name - saying that Christianity deserves to be treated with contempt because priests have abused their powers and organisations helped cover it up is the same game as calling Islam a death cult because of ISIS.
Evidence of gods = zero
So far...Most science, and more especially the science that particularly involved with universal physics has a basic set of principles that "zero chance" is not something you want to conclude. It might be very (to the power of many tens) unlikely, but's it's never zero.
There's a distinction to be made between "practicing religion" and "having belief".
I think there’s a distinction to be made between a religion and abuses committed in its name – saying that Christianity deserves to be treated with contempt because priests have abused their powers and organisations helped cover it up is the same game as calling Islam a death cult because of ISIS.
Difference here is that ISIS was a small splinter group that had the condemnation from Islam as a whole whereas Catholic church abuses were systematic and covered up from top to bottom by the organisation itself from the highest levels of power.
So far…Most science, and more especially the science that particularly involved with universal physics has a basic set of principles that “zero chance” is not something you want to conclude. It might be very (to the power of many zeros) unlikely, but’s it’s never zero.
Of course, that is we are always prepared to change in the face of newer better evidence, but believing in god, you may as well believe in flying invisible chocolate teapots or any other random concept as there is so far the same evidence and chance.
Can I ask, do you do calculus? Do you know what a limit is?
I think there’s a distinction to be made between a religion and abuses committed in its name – saying that Christianity deserves to be treated with contempt because priests have abused their powers and organisations helped cover it up is the same game as calling Islam a death cult because of ISIS.
No, its the same thing. As soon as you introduce faith and a lack of reason as way to control or motivate people you are carrying out a terrible immoral abuse. It is all part of the same continuum.
Because Humans.
Doesnt really work that way. If you are claiming its a direct benefit of Christianity you need to explain why and also why it didnt catch on in plenty of Christian cultures until external influence came in.
was revolutionary.
Nope just look at the grain dole in Rome although that obviously had self serving interests at play.
Or look at how serfdom kept going in some Christian countries way longer than others. There is no obvious reason to claim Christianity suddenly worked better in some countries vs looking at other factors.
you may as well believe in flying invisible chocolate teapots
I think most Christians don't think that any chocolate teapots died for their sins though. And I don't think any teapots (chocolate or otherwise) have ever argued that mosaic laws as practiced by Judean sects were regressive from a teapot-ist standpoint.
Certainly Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus Mendel …none of that happens without the church.
Galileo? The Galileo who the catholic church put under house arrest for heresy, that Galileo?
Christianity or any other religion does not have a monopoly on morality.
It comes in quite handy in enforcing it though. "You must do as you're told." Why should I listen to you? "Uh... see this carrot? And this stick?"
If you are claiming its a direct benefit of Christianity
Most, if not all judicial and governmental systems in Europe today operate from a philosophically Christian basis or at least have their roots there. Equal in the eyes of the law, just punishments and so on. You can argue that it was misinterpreted, or not done well, or different cultural mores* are at play. but fundamentally it removed might is right. You can't argue that these aren't Christian beliefs (you can see that they are in the bible and the commentary of people like Paul and his contemporaries), you can only argue about the interpretation of them
* In the same way the writings of Pleney or Caesar are re-interpreted for each generation as social and cultural structures change, the writing in the Talmud, Koran and Bible are constantly revised for each generation to find accepatble.
The set of values/ethics/laws that Christianity bought to Europe are the basis for all the set of values of western philosophical thought that come after it (including those arguing against the existence of “God”) and do so from the basic framework of the fundamental belief system of the Christian religion.
The problem with this line of thinking... there's probably a 'logical fallacy' name for it, I don't know. But it presumes that if something hadn't happened, it would never have happened. We could posit for instance "without Stephenson we wouldn't have had trains" or "without Steve Jobs we wouldn't have smartphones" but it supposes that no-one else could or would ever have come up with the idea.
That's the thing with revolutions, there will be another one along in a minute.
please do not think christianity should be protected from the derision and contempt it richly deserves to recieve.
It isn't. Have you read this thread? The many, many previous others? Your own post?
but fundamentally it removed might is right.
... by force.
Irony much?
I think most Christians don’t think that any chocolate teapots died for their sins though. And I don’t think any teapots (chocolate or otherwise) have ever argued that mosaic laws as practiced by Judean sects were regressive from a teapot-ist standpoint.
So what? Just because a huge amount of assumption and interpretation has been carried out, there is still zero evidence. And even more crucially, it is built in to the faith that questioning the lack of evidence is wrong, and even if you do question the lack of evidence the answer is always faith.
1) My calculus question?
2) Do you know what falsifiable means?
Galileo? The Galileo who the catholic church put under house arrest for heresy, that Galileo?
Yeah, that Galileo. You know that his research was funded, encouraged, and supported by Pope Urban, right? Without it, it most certainly couldn't have been written
But it presumes that if something hadn’t happened, it would never have happened.
No, I'm making the opposite argument to that. Along came Christianity and it did happen. It may well have happened with a different religious belief (but that would be counter factual), but it did happen to the whole of Europe (sharing a set of beliefs) under Christianity. That was revolutionary.
It isn’t. Have you read this thread? The many, many previous others? Your own post?
Not saying it is at all, I am just standing up for the defence of free thought, my comment is part of the discussion. You are free to claim or believe that my comment is or it isn't. I don't mind.
My rather wayward but intelligent eldest son has become a fairly serious Christian, which is a significant about face to where he was as a teenager. My take on it was that there are far worse ways of leading your life.
That was revolutionary.
So what. This is part of the BS around awards and appeal to authority. If Newton had not theorised about physics , then someone else would have, in fact others were. So I don't particulalry revere him or any other discoverers. It's just like celebrity worship. He happened to be in the right place (intellectually) at the right time.
… by force. Irony much?
Oh totally! I'm absolutely NOT arguing that it was wasn't responsible for millions of deaths and massive destruction. It totally was all those things. No excuse, not going to argue. BUT the important thing was that for the very first time (in Europe) everyone held the same set of beliefs that were in of themselves revolutionary in thought.
Which bits didn’t match your view of history?
I was just wondering. It's easy to look at religions now and extrapolate back, but that doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. People always develop religion, wherever in the world they are, and one local set of beliefs seems to have spread and dominated. But the origin of those beliefs is far far older, possibly hundreds of thousands of years older than Judaism or its scriptures. The development of the current set of rituals and practices is not fundamental to the concept of religion in my view.
I would discount anyone who states that ‘science is a belief system’
Science isn't a belief system, it is orthogonal to religion. Science is just the study of what you see. It makes little difference if it was created by a deity or not. Atheism however is a belief system precisely because theism is. If the answer to a question is unknowable then either side can only answer from belief.
You may not like the hats and stories, that’s fair enough, but Christianity (as a basis for a power structure) was revolutionary.
Yes, Dominion by Tom Holland is a great book about this. It asserts that because of Jesus' teachings, Christianity has always been subversive and revolutionary, and the idea that everyone is equal, from the poorest to the richest, has had profound implications in the West. However what it didn't address is the question of whether or not Christianity made the West like it is, or if Christianity took root here because Europe was already somehow culturally pre-disposed to it.
Evidence of gods = zero
Evidence of the phemonenology of physics – huge, and constantly changing.
But these are not antagonistic ideas, not in the least. It's entirely possible to have both a God and physics!
but believing in god, you may as well believe in flying invisible chocolate teapots or any other random concept
No, not really, because we know chocolate is not invisible and does not fly. We know nothing at all about God, we don't even have a good definition of what that word really means, so there is plenty of scope for it/Him to exist given how little we can ever know.
Consider that God could just be a word for something we don't understand.
I think most Christians don’t think that any chocolate teapots died for their sins though.
That's religious doctrine. The question of the concept of divinity is different, I think.
Christianity or any other religion does not have a monopoly on morality.
It comes in quite handy in enforcing it though. “You must do as you’re told.” Why should I listen to you? “Uh… see this carrot? And this stick?”
Far from exclusive to Christianity. That suggests to me that Christianity is not responsible for the abuses of power, simply a cover for them. If it wasn't that it would have been something else. See the USSR for examples.
I sometimes like to imagine what kind of being would have created humanity and why.
I sometimes wonder if I had an ant farm, could I train all the ants to turn and bow to a picture of me, perhaps by zapping the ones who ignored my picture with a magnifying class and rewarding the ones who did bow down with sugary treats that I would make appear miraculously?
If there is a god and part of the deal is they require us to bow down to them just because they can then this god is a total arsehole. What is this god missing in their life that they need us insignificant humans to worship them?
Or maybe we just have to file it under 'mysterious ways'.
If Newton had not theorised about physics , then someone else would have
But he did; at University, which at the time, were run (for better or worse) by the church. By his own writings, he was doing his research for the "greater glory of God" I'm not making this up, he really thought that at the time, that his fundamental rules would reveal to man the inner thoughts of his chosen deity. (his beliefs would've probs got him slung in jail at the time though)
He was as driven by his beliefs as any village priest, and that is an historical fact.
You can present as much counter factual as you want, and as far as maths and physics go, I don't doubt that someone would've figured it out. But is was figured out by Newton who was (at the time) considered a bit of a religious outsider Them's the facts
If the answer to a question is unknowable then either side can only answer from belief.
and
It’s entirely possible to have both a God and physics!
I disagree.
As far as anything is "knowable", that which we know is that which we observe. Never has god been observed.
Physics is a way of describing what has been observed. Hence the existence of the phenomena described in physics is much more likely than god.
When/if god is observed, it will just be physics.
But he did; at University, which at the time, were run (for better or worse) by the church. By his own writings, he was doing his research for the “greater glory of God” I’m not making this up, he really thought that at the time, that his fundamental rules would reveal to man the inner thoughts of his chosen deity. (his beliefs would’ve probs got him slung in jail at the time though)
He was as driven by his beliefs as any village priest, and that is an historical fact.
You can present as much counter factual as you want, and as far as maths and physics go, I don’t doubt that someone would’ve figured it out. But is was figured out by Newton who was (at the time) considered a bit of a religious outsider Them’s the facts
Again so what - are you implying that it would not have happened without religion? None of this points to the existence of god(s).
Dominion by Tom Holland is a great book
I think nickc is probably aware of this, my guess is that he may well be a Rest is History fan based on his other reading material.
Speaking of gods, does anyone else think the STW owners are looking at this discussion and thinking "Yay traffic" .╰(*°▽°*)╯
but it did happen to the whole of Europe (sharing a set of beliefs) under Christianity. That was revolutionary.
Its also factually wrong. It didnt occur in many parts of Europe until enforced on them by others.
It also didnt catch on in other Christian dominated cultures until, again, it was externally applied. So the obvious question is why should Christianity be given the credit for this as opposed to other influences?
He was as driven by his beliefs as any village priest
This in itself is a somewhat flawed idea. I would put money on him being more driven than many of them who had varying levels of belief especially in England where the primogeniture system tended to push people into the church regardless of personal belief levels.
. It didnt occur in many parts of Europe until enforced on them by others.
Sure, but it doesn't alter the fact that all of Europe was converted (by one means or another) to a single religion.
Sure, but it doesn’t alter the fact that all of Europe was converted (by one means or another) to a single religion.
Again, so what, does this prove the existence of god?
does anyone else think the STW owners are looking at this discussion and thinking “Yay traffic”
To echo some previous posts - if it wasn't this thread it would be another
are you implying that it would not have happened without religion?
No, I'm arguing that it did happen in a Europe that was dominated by Christianity. That is a fact Whether it would've happened without religion is counter factual and somewhat besides the point.
In other words you don't have to guess about the origins of the basics of physics. Those are known to us already.
In other words you don’t have to guess about the origins of the basics of physics. Those are known to us already.
If you are claiming it was religion, doesn't this piss on the whole argument?
And again so what. It doesn't prove god.
Slight thread hijack, but is there a computer game where you have an autonomous population ie, a group of people who have their own desires and motivations who make their own decisions/actions, but the player can indirectly (or sometimes directly) affect them by, for example, giving them diseases, denying them dream jobs, etc or alternatively curing them of diseases, letting them win the lottery, etc?
I'm quite interested in finding out what type of god I would be.
Again, so what, does this prove the existence of god?
To those people they all (for the first time) believed in the same God.
There's an argument that in any discussion about decisions made by actual historical people at some points in history (like Caesar for instance) you have to ask "But what about magic?" To which the answer nowadays is "but magic isn't real" But. To these people it certainly did exist, and they made decisions based upon the outcomes of magical ceremonies, so magic influenced their decision making. Magic to Caesar is real.
Same with religion. Does it proves God is real, to most of us now, the answer is no. To those people, at that time...Without a doubt.
The way this thread is going, SR isn’t going to need a pub night…
I disagree.
As far as anything is “knowable”, that which we know is that which we observe. Never has god been observed.
Physics is a way of describing what has been observed. Hence the existence of the phenomena described in physics is much more likely than god.When/if god is observed, it will just be physics.
I think you do actually agree. Physics is about being able to measure, predict and understand what we see. If God exists in a measurable form it would be subject to the same process. That is why you can have both Physics and God.
Even saying that God created the world does not exclude physics. Because how did He create it? How did that work? How did God come to be?
See also magic. And consider that the word 'supernatural' is an oxymoron.
Same with religion. Does it proves God is real, to most of us now, the answer is no. To those people, at that time…Without a doubt.
So because people with less knowledge than us once believed in god, that proves he exists?
Or are you just avoiding actually answering the question.
Meanwhile:
1) My calculus question- do you know what a limit is?
2) Do you know what falsifiable means?
Same with religion. Does it proves God is real, to most of us now, the answer is no. To those people, at that time…Without a doubt.
Then we are onto the subject of the nature of reality. Which is ultimately subjective both in human terms, in logical terms and also in Physics.
So because people with less knowledge than us once believed in god, that proves he exists?
I don't think nickc is arguing that God exists. I certainly am not. What I'm saying is that it is unknowable, not simply unknown.
What I’m saying is that it is unknowable
This is about a/the defintion of god. If it is "unkowable" then what is being defined and what does it mean. Unknowlable implies it means nothing and is irrelavant.
Or it implies that it does nto emet the falsifiabilty test, and is hence not a concept or theory or anything.
No, I’m arguing that it did happen in a Europe that was dominated by Christianity. That is a fact
And yet it didnt happen in other cultures dominated by Christianity.
So why?
[i]I was just wondering. It’s easy to look at religions now and extrapolate back, but that doesn’t necessarily tell the whole story. People always develop religion, wherever in the world they are, and one local set of beliefs seems to have spread and dominated. But the origin of those beliefs is far far older, possibly hundreds of thousands of years older than Judaism or its scriptures. The development of the current set of rituals and practices is not fundamental to the concept of religion in my view.[/i]
I agree with your point about it going back to before organised religion or more accurately you are agreeing with my point about humans needing to make up belief systems to support their reason to exist.
@5plusn8 - This is religions whole argument though. Non religious people say "god doesn't exist", and religious people reply with "but he might....😉" and it just goes round in circles until the non religious people get so bored or frustrated they just give up.
As far as anything is “knowable”, that which we know is that which we observe. Never has god been observed.
Hawking believed that black holes "existed" theoretically, right up until the point that they were clearly going to be found, he didn't think humans could or would find them. He's also said that if God exists then he didn't think it would be in a form that humans could ask questions of, it would be "a set of rules or laws"
I don’t think nickc is arguing that God exists
If anything, I would describe myself as culturally Jewish atheist . I'm not Christian or religious (don't tell my mother)
Oh this thread has brought the memories flooding back....... how I miss MrWoppit.
"That would be an ecumenical matter" is my only contribution to this discussion btw.
This is religions whole argument though. Non religious people say “god doesn’t exist”, and religious people reply with “but he might….😉” and it just goes round in circles until the non religious people get so bored or frustrated they just give up.
Let's assume God does exist for a minute.
Isn't it obvious he's just a complete arsehole? Why do people worship something that is so insecure that it requires a bunch of sentient beings who are less intelligent and less powerful to worship it on pain of eternal damnation?
If there is an argument that God isn't a vindictive child essentially torturing animals then I've yet to hear it.
Hawking believed that black holes “existed” theoretically, right up until the point that they were clearly going to be found, he didn’t think humans could or would find them. He’s also said that if God exists then he didn’t think it would be in a form that humans could ask questions of, it would be “a set of rules or laws”
Yes but he predicted black holes from a model of other observed stuff in the universe.
Instead of trying to chuck easily deflected hand grenades, why not answer the questions?
1) My calculus question- do you know what a limit is?
2) Do you know what falsifiable means?
So why?
Dunno
Dunno
So why say it was Christianity in Europe? Surely it makes more sense to look at factors which arent shared before giving the credit to Christianity?
1) My calculus question- do you know what a limit is?
2) Do you know what falsifiable means?
No idea on the first one, not really interested in calculus. Falsifiable is just the notion that a theory has the capacity to be proven wrong.
Again, if you want to use science to argue against religion, you're not going to have an argument on your hands. It's like saying oranges beat apples. It's a context problem.
If there is an argument that God isn’t a vindictive child essentially torturing animals then I’ve yet to hear it.
It's a shame that this thread has ended up an argument about the existence, or otherwise, of god(s) as there are other religions too. I guess it's a sign of the location / background / upbringing of the majority of contributors.
So why say it was Christianity in Europe?
Because Saxon Rider is an expert in the spread of Christianity in the 7th C and the area that takes it and runs with it is early medieval Europe.
Let’s assume God does exist for a minute.
Isn’t it obvious he’s just a complete arsehole? Why do people worship something that is so insecure that it requires a bunch of sentient beings who are less intelligent and less powerful to worship it on pain of eternal damnation?
If there is an argument that God isn’t a vindictive child essentially torturing animals then I’ve yet to hear it.
Religion, to me, is the ultimate ism. Its got everything, racism, sexism, homophobia.... Yet, taking chirstianity as an example, it's whole basis is about not being the bad guy. It just doesn't make any sense.
I guess it’s a sign of the location / background / upbringing of the majority of contributors.
There's that and also the fact that the thread was started by an Orthodox priest asking if we wanted to talk about Christianity.
scotroutes
Full Member
It’s a shame that this thread has ended up an argument about the existence, or otherwise, of god(s) as there are other religions too. I guess it’s a sign of the location / background / upbringing of the majority of contributors.
About 2 days ago you mentioned that all discussions should avoid religion and politics. This shit show just proved you were right
and the area that takes it and runs with it is early medieval Europe.
and yet it didnt happen for many years after that and also only in a subset of the countries which it had spread to.
So again why did it work in some countries and not in others?
That is generally an indication that the important factor wasnt shared.
Atheism however is a belief system precisely because theism is. If the answer to a question is unknowable then either side can only answer from belief.
Nope. It's the rejection of belief. I don't think Father Christmas is real, would you describe that as a belief system?
If the answer to a question is truly unknowable then it's a likely a daft question. If the answer to a question is merely unknown then we can make a best guess - a hypothesis if you like - based on what is known, likely or suspected. The didn't build the LHC because they were bored one rainy Tuesday and had run out of chocolate, the were specifically looking for an unknown with sound reason.
No, not really, because we know chocolate is not invisible and does not fly.
Maybe some of it does and you've simply never seen it.
Far from exclusive to Christianity.
Oh, sure. Most major religions (and many, many minor ones that we'd call cults) include some form of crowd control. We touched on this earlier, it was allegedly bringing morality to the great unwashed. But aside from anything else it's a means of self-preservation. Why do we suppose "every sperm is sacred" and Catholicism is so against birth control? Keep squeezing out those boil-in-the-bag believers folks, it's far easier than converting them later in life.
Hawking believed that black holes “existed” theoretically
Hawking had evidence to back up his theory though. There is no evidence for the existence of the Christian definition of God.
He’s also said that if God exists then he didn’t think it would be in a form that humans could ask questions of, it would be “a set of rules or laws”
Then at that point you're not talking about God in any Christian sense. He's just talking about "God" being physics and mathematics.
About 2 days ago you mentioned that all discussions should avoid religion and politics. This shit show just proved you were right
A good way to reduce the popularity of religion/politics threads would be to not post on them.
Something that people who claim to not like religion/politics seem to struggle with.
Again, if you want to use science to argue against religion, you’re not going to have an argument on your hands. It’s like saying oranges beat apples. It’s a context problem.
More like a reality problem. Science is just a word used to describe a sensible and ordered way of observing everything and trying to understand it so we can use it.
So far god has not been observed. Hence how can anyone claim existence. Its not there, there is nothing. It is just made up stories to fool the unwary.
Again, if you want to use science to argue against religion, you’re not going to have an argument on your hands. It’s like saying oranges beat apples. It’s a context problem.
Absolutely (hahaha)
Let’s assume God does exist for a minute.
Isn’t it obvious he’s just a complete arsehole?
Not necessarily. Again, consider the watchmaker analogy. God could have created us, and then let us do whatever we wanted to do. Which would include powerful people persuading everyone else that they needed to to follow certain rituals or else. This is a pretty widespread concept with or without God being cited. The religious may not necessarily know any more than anyone else about the nature of God. After all, the concept of God varies quite a lot in the Bible itself, which is supported by historical evidence.
Unknowlable implies it means nothing and is irrelavant.
Not really, but also yes.
you are agreeing with my point about humans needing to make up belief systems to support their reason to exist.
But with nuance. I don't think primitive people sat around thinking 'right, we're meaningless without some other purpose so let's set something up'. I suspect it evolved organically along with humans themselves. Why that might've happened is another question.
Non religious people say “god doesn’t exist”, and religious people reply with “but he might….
Indeed, but why do religious and non-religious people do that?
I don’t understand what you’re driving at?
Its simple enough.
You have been making claims that the way Europe turned out is due to Christianity.
Given though there are other cultures dominated by Christianity which didnt have the same outcomes exactly why should Christianity be given the benefit for Europe as opposed to other factors?
It is just made up stories to fool the unwary.
Sure, I don't believe in God, so it's not an issue. But like me you live in a society who's underpinnings in just about every branch of it's constructs (from law to education and everything in between) all the way from London to Moscow share a set of values/ethics and morals derived from the philosophical teachings of an off-shoot of Judaism collected and codified in the first centuries BCE after their leader was crucified, and it's earliest followers fled the scene .
That's a fact. I'm less in interested in the God thing if I'm honest with you.
To those people they all (for the first time) believed in the same God.
There must come a point where it becomes a groupthink numbers game. If everyone else believes and are hostile towards those who don't, what are you going to say? There's murkier corners of Islam like this today, where being a heretic could put your life at risk. So you get this weird situation where hypothetically none of them might believe it yet no-one dare speak out for fear of retribution from the other non-believers.
Wasn't there a famous experiment around this with monkeys? They press a button and something bad happens, then gradually all the monkeys get swapped out and they continue to aggressively defend the button despite none of them actually knowing why.
Not necessarily. Again, consider the watchmaker analogy. God could have created us, and then let us do whatever we wanted to do. Which would include powerful people persuading everyone else that they needed to to follow certain rituals or else. This is a pretty widespread concept with or without God being cited. The religious may not necessarily know any more than anyone else about the nature of God. After all, the concept of God varies quite a lot in the Bible itself, which is supported by historical evidence.
Lets say the watchmaker analogy is true. What difference does it make if we acknowledge the watchmaker's existence or not?
Isn't pretending to understand the watchmaker, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, something that is actually very harmful to society?
Is Saxonrider still here, or has he just given up 😕
You have been making claims that the way Europe turned out is due to Christianity.
Not quite. I'm making claims that Europe turned out the way it did because of the revolutionary philosophy behind Christianity. I'm perfect happy to accept that had another religion come along in late Rome that grabbed a hold of it's leaders, we might well have had a different society now.
why should Christianity be given the benefit for Europe as opposed to other factors?
Because there huge amounts of archaeological evidence to prove it in Europe.
So far god has not been observed. Hence how can anyone claim existence
As with some branches of science, the existence of something can be posited from known facts without it ever having been observed
Science then be seeks to prove that existence but it doesn't always go according to plan and might find other unknowns along the way.
don’t think primitive people sat around thinking ‘right, we’re meaningless without some other purpose so let’s set something up’.
I expect they'd have gone to the wise man or the village elder with such questions. "I don't know, son" is unlikely to have been the stock-in-trade of such a position.
the concept of God varies quite a lot in the Bible itself, which is supported by historical evidence.
Could you give us an example?
There must come a point where it becomes a groupthink numbers game
Probably, although I'm mostly convinced that lots of folks at the time saw Christianity as a pretty cool set of beliefs and changed voluntarily.
I expect they’d have gone to the wise man or the village elder with such questions. “I don’t know, son” is unlikely to have been the stock-in-trade of such a position.
So you think that religion or any kind of spirituality did not exist until a village elder made up a tall tale one day so that he could get people do what he wanted?
What difference does it make if we acknowledge the watchmaker’s existence or not?
Isn’t pretending to understand the watchmaker, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, something that is actually very harmful to society?
Both good questions. Maybe bring them up at the pub night? 🙂
As with some branches of science, the existence of something can be posited from known facts without it ever having been observed
Science then be seeks to prove that existence but it doesn’t always go according to plan and might find other unknowns along the way.
Indeed, like Hawing and black holes, what model is used to predict god and what other evidence is there to support the model?
The answer is nothing. NADA.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's possible we're living in a simulation in which case our God is a programmer who has built a group of AIs (that's us) that are simplified versions of itself and who controls the environment to a certain extent to see how we react.
What possible benefit is there for us to worship this programmer? Do you think they care if we praise them? I wouldn't.
I would send a digital flood to destroy a digital town just to see how the AIs reacted. I wouldn't care if all the AIs had little digital shrines to me and said their prayers to me every night.
We can't prove to you that the Great Programmer doesn't exist. Can you at least tell us why we should worship this Great Programmer?
I expect they’d have gone to the wise man or the village elder with such questions. “I don’t know, son” is unlikely to have been the stock-in-trade of such a position.
You've just described Judaism; which is mostly old men going "Yeah...maybe, who knows?"
What possible benefit is there for us to worship this programmer?
What benefit is there for us to sing songs? Or to support a football team? Or post on STW?!
Can you at least tell us why we should worship this Great Programmer?
Me? No. I don't worship him/her/it.