Ugh. I'm not doubting reality............
My apologies if it sounded like that was what I meant. I meant that it's not useful to go around worried about, for instance, whether we're in the real world or the Matrix. To do anything we have to make assumptions that we can't necessarily prove, such as the that other people exist and we aren't in the Matrix.
People assume what God is and isn't. They assume he's perfect. They assume he "visits the earth," etc. It's actually super annoying and makes every argument concerning the assumptions extremely invalid.
I couldn't agree more. I take it you don't subscribe to any particular religion, then?
And just because a scientist isn't aware of any Godly presence doesn't mean other people haven't? Not saying I believe those people have experienced it, but really why would a scientist be able to detect that?
I'm not saying a scientist could. We're in our intellectual infancy with regards to science; however, in the centuries to come that will change. It's very possible we'll be able to do things currently thought impossible. Merely speculation. But the fact is that if anything exists in the physical world, it will be detectable by physical means, e.g. scientific examination. That's how physics works.
I am still on the argument that the mind isn't physical. Perhaps neither is God. You haven't proven that the mind is the same thing as the brain. They are separate.
You haven't offered any argument whatsoever that the brain and mind
aren't the same. We know precisely what the brain's actions are produced by (chemicals and electricity, as I've already said). Tell me why they aren't the same thing. Or, perhaps more specific, tell me why the mind isn't the product of an advanced brain.
OK. So imagine your parents are doing each other. Now go into your brain and collect me that image. KTHX.
Are we seriously going to let this devolve into immature quips? Come on.
My favorite case is referred to as Paschal's Wager, which translated and simplified is roughly that it is safer to wager that there is a god and find out that there isn't, than to wager that there isn't and find out that there is. Perfectly logical and perfectly simple. In more than 30 years of debating this no one has ever refuted it.
... What?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#CriticismTake a gander at that. I'll even take the liberty of refuting it briefly here in case you can't/don't click that link.
As you said, Pascal's Wager is the argument that it's more logical to believe in god and be wrong than to not believe and be wrong, as the former will bear no consequence whatsoever while the latter will end in eternal torment or some such unpleasant scenario.
Two problems.
First: Which god do you choose to believe in? The God of the Jews? The God of the Christians? Allah? Vishnu? Thor? Cthulu? Quetzalcoatl? The Roman pantheon? The Greek pantheon? Any number of African gods? Native American gods? How do you choose?
This isn't a fifty-fifty shot at eternity in heaven here. There are thousands of gods that have been created over the course of human history. Most of them offer eternity in exchange for worship, and most consequently threaten with torment if refused. How do you know which to believe in? How do you know which one's real?
The chance is far greater that you'll choose incorrectly and suffer the same fate as if you hadn't believed in any at all.
Second: If your god is omniscient (that is, he knows everything) and he requires a "true" believer, then what good does "believing" in him do when it's only as, essentially, a safety net? Surely an all-knowing god would see right through that shallow attempt at belief and send you to our favorite fiery place anyway. If that's not the case, then he's either not omniscient or doesn't care if you believe in him or not. So why believe in him if he doesn't care? Why call him god if he is not all-knowing, thus also making him not all-powerful?
Pascal was a brilliant mathematician and physicist, but he was an unashamed Christian apologist -- and a bad one at that.