For many people, believing in God comes down to a gut feeling that a benevolent deity is out there. A study now finds that gut feelings may be very important in determining who goes to church every Sunday and who avoids the pews.

People who are generally more intuitive in the way they think and make decisions are more likely to believe in God than those who ruminate over their choices, the researchers found. The findings suggest that basic differences in thinking style can influence religious belief.

"Some say we believe in God because our intuitions about how and why things happen lead us to see a divine purpose behind ordinary events that don't have obvious human causes," study researcher Amitai Shenhav of Harvard University said in a statement. "This led us to ask whether the strength of an individual's beliefs is influenced by how much they trust their natural intuitions versus stopping to reflect on those first instincts."

Shenhav and his colleagues investigated that question in a series of studies. In the first, 882 American adults answered online surveys about their belief in God. Next, the participants took a three-question math test with questions such as, "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball.

How much does the ball cost?"

The intuitive answer to that question is 10 cents, since most people's first impulse is to knock $1 off the total. But people who use "reflective" reasoning to question their first impulse are more likely to get the correct answer: 5 cents.

Sure enough, people who went with their intuition on the math test were found to be one-and-a-half times more likely to believe in God than those who got all the answers right. The results held even when taking factors such as education and income into account.

In a second study, 373 participants were told to write a paragraph about either successfully using their intuition or successfully reasoning their way to an answer. Those who wrote about the intuitive experience were more likely to say they were convinced of God's existence after the experiment, suggesting that triggering intuitive thinking boosts belief.

The researchers plan to investigate how genes and education influence thinking styles, but they're quick to note that neither intuition nor reflection is inherently superior.

"It's not that one way is better than the other," study researcher David Rand of Harvard said in a statement. "Intuitions are important and reflection is important, and you want some balance of the two. Where you are on that spectrum affects how you come out in terms of belief in God."

The research was published Sept. 19 online in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

$1.05 (bat) + $0.05 (ball) = $1.10 (bat & ball)
$1.05 (bat) - $0.05 (ball) = $1.00 (bat more than ball)


Actually Einstein, although Jewish, spoke of the universe as representing what humans' considered god. He ultimately decided that all human conceptions of god were myths. Some of Einsteins direct quotes support this perspective:

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious lady. "

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

Given: bat + ball = 1.10 or x + y = 1.10 where
x = cost of bat
y = cost of ball
x = y + 1.00

Solution: x + y = 1.10
(y + 1.00) + y = 1.10
y + 1.00 + y = 1.10
2y+1.00 = 1.10
2y = 1.10 - 1.00
2y = 0.10
y = 0.05
Ball costs $0.05.

Aringarosa:

Given: bat + ball = 1.10 or x + y = 1.10 where
x = cost of bat
y = cost of ball
x = y + 1.00

Solution: x + y = 1.10
(y + 1.00) + y = 1.10
y + 1.00 + y = 1.10
2y+1.00 = 1.10
2y = 1.10 - 1.00
2y = 0.10
y = 0.05
Ball costs $0.05.

@Aringarosa, You made it much more complicated than needed.

x=cost of ball
1+x= cost of bat
cost of ball + cost of bat = $1.10

(x) + (1+x) = $1.10
2x + 1 = $1.10
2x = 1.10-1
2x = 0.10
x = $0.05

includes all the totally unnecessary steps.

simplified by solving mostly in your head:
(x) + (1+x) = 1.10
2x + = 0.10
x = $0.05

or just look at the problem and conclude one has to be 0.05 and the other is 1.05.

^^^ i could have done that, i wanted to go step by step so its clearer

Slow down ya lost me, I still don't get. Don't blame me. I went to public school.

@ frazy- It's alright, I am confidant in my math so will show you the way most people would understand it better, I tutor. First off, Ignore the $1.00, it's already spoken for in the word problem, "a dollar more", with the $1.00 being removed, there is now 2 items left, the bat & the ball that comes to 10 cents. Divide 10 cents by 2 (2 items, bat & ball) and that makes them 5 cents a piece, now as the story said, the bat was $1.00 more, making it $1.05 & that is how the ball is 5 cents! Hope that helps!

I guess I'm stupid. But I believe in God. Even if you don't believe in God, and you think Jesus was just a man. You can't deny that this one man has had a profound impact on billions of people over the last 2000 years. Who else can you say has had that much influence on mankind. And he is still revered today. That many people can't be wrong. And all he was trying to say is love each other, and love the Father that put us here on Mother Earth.

According to Lee Strobel and Louis Carroll, Christ was one of three things: a Lunatic, a Liar or the Lord. No other options are available logically. Make your choice. Since there are more than two choices, it is not a faulty dilemma or False Alternatives Fallacy. It is an axiomatic fact that Jesus existed, it is up to you to discern whom he was. Faith and Logic are not mutually exclusive. There are mathematical certainties that indicate Jesus Christ was God.

I guess I'm silly. But I believe in God. Even if you don't believe in God, and you think Jesus was just a man. You can't deny that this one man has had a profound impact on billions of people over the last 2000 years. Who else can you say has had that much influence on mankind. And he is still revered today. That many people can't be wrong. And all he was trying to say is love each other, and love the Father that put us here on Mother Earth.

Permit me to say, you are not Silly !

For dare believing in GOD and going further to accept his SON Jesus Christ makes you a wise person automatically.

There are people who keep grappling with the illogicality of GOD , BUT Instead of getting nearer to the truth , their pride takes them down a twisted path of confusion, supposing themselves to be wise they become FOOLs !!!

Romans 1: 21 " Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. "

1 Corinthians 1:20 "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

White007:

According to Lee Strobel and Louis Carroll, Christ was one of three things: a Lunatic, a Liar or the Lord. No other options are available logically. Make your choice. Since there are more than two choices, it is not a faulty dilemma or False Alternatives Fallacy. It is an axiomatic fact that Jesus existed, it is up to you to discern whom he was. Faith and Logic are not mutually exclusive. There are mathematical certainties that indicate Jesus Christ was God.

What mathematical certainties?

If Jesus did in fact existed and I see no evidence of any of his miracles, what do you think my conclusion will be? a Lunatic, a Liar or the Lord

Aringarosa:

What mathematical certainties?

If Jesus did in fact existed and I see no evidence of any of his miracles, what do you think my conclusion will be? a Lunatic, a Liar or the Lord

Lying and Lunacy are mutually exclusive because lying requires the liar to be cognizant of the lying. You are reducing the causes of creation to infinity.

White007:


Lying and Lunacy are mutually exclusive because lying requires the liar to be cognizant of the lying. You are reducing the causes of creation to infinity.

A crazy person has the capability of lying knowing fully well he is lying. He just doesn't recognize that he is crazy. You still haven't provided me with any of your mathematical certainties.

White007:

According to Lee Strobel and Louis Carroll, Christ was one of three things: a Lunatic, a Liar or the Lord. No other options are available logically. Make your choice. Since there are more than two choices, it is not a faulty dilemma or False Alternatives Fallacy. It is an axiomatic fact that Jesus existed, it is up to you to discern whom he was. Faith and Logic are not mutually exclusive. There are mathematical certainties that indicate Jesus Christ was God.

What mathematical certainties?

Also, what if Jesus was none of the above and instead it was his followers (Paul being the most likely culprit) who twisted his message to it's present form?

Also, if a modern day Jesus appeared before you, would you not assume that he was a lunatic or a liar? If I claimed to be the only path to salvation and refused to perform miracles to prove it, What would you think I was?

Aringarosa:


A crazy person has the capability of lying knowing fully well he is lying. He just doesn't recognize that he is crazy. You still haven't provided me with any of your mathematical certainties.

Can a Lunatic believe in lie? Lunatics believe in untruths all the time. I think your logic is a little fuzzy. The human mind is not that bifurcated. I hinted at on of the proofs, well two: You cannot reduce the causes of creation to infinity and you cannot prove a negative. The proofs you seek are not mine-read Thomas Aquinas.

White007:

Can a Lunatic believe in lie? Lunatics believe in untruths all the time. I think your logic is a little fuzzy. The human mind is not that bifurcated. I hinted at on of the proofs, well two: You cannot reduce the causes of creation to infinity and you cannot prove a negative. The proofs you seek are not mine-read Thomas Aquinas.

The fact still remains. Lunatics Can and do lie knowing fully well they are lying. They just don't recognize that they are crazy. For example, a crazy person can think he's Napoleon. That crazy person can lie if I ask him a trivial question like "did you brush your teeth?"

You are assuming there is a creation and there is a cause for that creation.
You can prove a negative.

^^^Patently false claim not supported by any clinical evidence that you so require. Maybe in the alternate universe he thinks he visits sometimes, he is not sure he brushed his teeth? To maintain a position/claim one must have a rationale for the judgement, if not then that position is irrational. Proving nothing is just that; is unsound, invalid logic/reasoning. You are assuming that creation is reduced to infinity and have no proof to support the claim you make. At least I can point to Teleological evidence of Design for my claim. You possess nothing concrete.

Why invoke a mythical place conjured by a Christian(Tolkien)? Irony? What is your answer to the Epicurean Model?

White007:

^^^Patently false claim not supported by any clinical evidence that you so require. Maybe in the alternate universe he thinks he visits sometimes, he is not sure he brushed his teeth? To maintain a position/claim one must have a rationale for the judgement, if not then that position is irrational. Proving nothing is just that; is unsound, invalid logic/reasoning. You are assuming that creation is reduced to infinity and have no proof to support the claim you make. At least I can point to Teleological evidence of Design for my claim. You possess nothing concrete.

White007:

Why invoke a mythical place conjured by a Christian(Tolkien)? Irony? What is your answer to the Epicurean Model?

I'm not assuming anything. I perfectly satisfied with admitting I don't know where the Universe came from. Your argument is an argument from ignorance. Just because you have no explanation why the Universe is this way, you posit a God. There could be millions of other answers to the question. There could be a mystical chimney that puffed the world into existence for all we know. Positing a God without evidence of the actual being, "God" is illogical.

I know plenty of crazy people who lie to me all the time. They know they are lying. Haven't you realized that one can be crazy about one thing and not everything else? The person who thinks he is Napoleon can still know the ABCs. And him saying that E is the third letter in the alphabet, is lying?

I'm not familiar with Epicurean Model.

I'm a big fan of his books. Is there really a point in poking fun of it if you actually had valid arguments?

He he. See maths winches and wizards.

Frazy:

I guess I'm silly. But I believe in God. Even if you don't believe in God, and you think Jesus was just a man. You can't deny that this one man has had a profound impact on billions of people over the last 2000 years. Who else can you say has had that much influence on mankind. And he is still revered today. That many people can't be wrong.

I think that is a wrong strategy for life.

frosbel:

For dare believing in GOD and going further to accept his SON Jesus Christ makes you a wise person automatically.

Lol.

Aringarosa:



I'm not assuming anything. I perfectly satisfied with admitting I don't know where the Universe came from. Your argument is an argument from ignorance. Just because you have no explanation why the Universe is this way, you posit a God. There could be millions of other answers to the question. There could be a mystical chimney that puffed the world into existence for all we know. Positing a God without evidence of the actual being, "God" is illogical.

I know plenty of crazy people who lie to me all the time. They know they are lying. Haven't you realized that one can be crazy about one thing and not everything else? The person who thinks he is Napoleon can still know the ABCs. And him saying that E is the third letter in the alphabet, is lying?

I'm not familiar with Epicurean Model.

I'm a big fan of his books. Is there really a point in poking fun of it if you actually had valid arguments?

Not poking fun my friend, I withdraw the comment. "I may disagree with what you have to say but will defend to the death your right to say it" -Thoreau? I think Aquinas, Augustine and even Aristotle in his "Ethics" had valid arguments. Eliciting Potential in pursuit of Virtue by practicing for it's own sake. Evolution is a biological process explaining conducive mutations within the surviving species either coinciding and/or in response to a given changing environment. It does not explain an originating cause for life. It is only potential actualized from DNA. The variables and factors necessary for the four Aminos to form and couple into DNA is amazing enough but their assembly for a directed purpose is extraordinary. 10^53 Billions of years for that to occur which is a number, for all practical purposes, infinity. The universe is only 14 Billion. Something comes from something and nothing comes from nothing. The permutations of Accident, Chance or Luck do not occur in a perfect Vacuum or Nothingness for that matter.

The capacity for Metaphysical thought is what separates Man from the rest of nature. The ability to commune with God would be a mutation that serves no purpose in your universe. Even the concept of God serves no purpose for you, yet it exists, why? It should not exist in the surviving species.

@ Aringarosa - You can only posit a myriad of explanations for existence. A plethora of explanations violates Occums Razor. The lunatic could really believe E comes before or should come before D and after B and C does not exist. I could state that you do not believe G exists for obvious reasons. Positing that something does not exist is the definition of ill Logic. You have not proved a negative, you only have offered alternative explanations which are more complicated and unwieldy.

White007:

@ Aringarosa - You can only posit a myriad of explanations for existence. A plethora of explanations violates Occums Razor. The lunatic could really believe E comes before or should come before D and after B and C does not exist. I could state that you do not believe G exists for obvious reasons. Positing that something does not exist is the definition of ill Logic. You have not proved a negative, you only have offered alternative explanations which are more complicated and unwieldy.

White007:


Not poking fun my friend, I withdraw the comment. "I may disagree with what you have to say but will defend to the death your right to say it" -Thoreau? I think Aquinas, Augustine and even Aristotle in his "Ethics" had valid arguments. Eliciting Potential in pursuit of Virtue by practicing for it's own sake. Evolution is a biological process explaining conducive mutations within the surviving species either coinciding and/or in response to a given changing environment. It does not explain an originating cause for life. It is only potential actualized from DNA. The variables and factors necessary for the four Aminos to form and couple into DNA is amazing enough but their assembly for a directed purpose is extraordinary. 10^53 Billions of years for that to occur which is a number, for all practical purposes, infinity. The universe is only 14 Billion. Something comes from something and nothing comes from nothing. The permutations of Accident, Chance or Luck do not occur in a perfect Vacuum or Nothingness for that matter.

The capacity for Metaphysical thought is what separates Man from the rest of nature. The ability to commune with God would be a mutation that serves no purpose in your universe. Even the concept of God serves no purpose for you, yet it exists, why? It should not exist in the surviving species.

Complexity doesn't always require intelligence. Where did you get the data that it takes 10^53 billion years for Aminos to assemble for a directed purpose? And how would you make such a calculation? Can't they just theoretically assemble.

"Something comes from something and nothing comes from nothing"

wouldn't positing a God violate these two things? Why can't I then posit anything else that violates these. If you're going to violate you own rules, why can't we violate yours?

Aringarosa:



Complexity doesn't always require intelligence. Where did you get the data that it takes 10^53 billion years for Aminos to assemble for a directed purpose? And how would you make such a calculation? Can't they just theoretically assemble.

"Something comes from something and nothing comes from nothing"

wouldn't positing a God violate these two things? Why can't I then posit anything else that violates these. If you're going to violate you own rules, why can't we violate yours?

Positing "Mystical Chimneys" is facetious and not worthy of debate. No Explanation is something came from nothing or reducing causes to infinity which is illogical.

Positing: absence of proof is proof of absence, is illogical. Postulating that something does not exist without evidence is illogical. Therefore, proving a negative is illogical.

White007:


Positing "Mystical Chimneys" is facetious and not worthy of debate. No Explanation is something came from nothing or reducing causes to infinity which is illogical.

Positing: absence of proof is proof of absence, is illogical. Postulating that something does not exist without evidence is illogical. Therefore, proving a negative is illogical.

"No explanation is something came from nothing or reducing causes to infinity which is illogical"

Where does God come from?

"Absence of proof is proof of absence"

I'm saying all the proof that you think applied to God can also apply to the Mystical Chimney.

Aringarosa:

"No explanation is something came from nothing or reducing causes to infinity which is illogical"

Where does God come from?

"Absence of proof is proof of absence"

I'm saying all the proof that you think applied to God can also apply to the Mystical Chimney.

10^53 billions is from some of Drakes estimations and Stephen Hawking's own math which he now violates with his current "something from nothing" hypothesis. 14 Billions years for age of universe is universally accepted in the Cosmology community. Something=Creator. "Nothing" speaks for itself, well, it doesn't because it is "nothing". Simplest explanation has the highest probability for being the best/most correct explanation. Have you tried Pascal's Wager in addition to all this? More of an expedient reason to believe in a creator. If you can posit all of these causes can you posit an intellect greater than mankind's?

White007:

10^53 billions is from some of Drakes estimations and Stephen Hawking's own math which he now violates with his current "something from nothing" hypothesis. 14 Billions years for age of universe is universally accepted in the Cosmology community. Something=Creator. "Nothing" speaks for itself, well, it doesn't because it is "nothing". Simplest explanation has the highest probability for being the best/most correct explanation. Have you tried Pascal's Wager in addition to all this? More of an expedient reason to believe in a creator. If you can posit all of these causes can you posit an intellect greater than mankind's?

Stephen Hawking has nothing to do with biology?

The fact remains you are violating your own rules. You cannot posit an illogical being to answer a logical question. There are two possibilities either God came from nothing or God is infinite which violates your rules. God is not a logical concept. Therefore you can posit anything illogical (like the mystical chimney) and still satisfy your argument. God is not the simplest explanation. What about the Universe creating itself? What about a dog creating the universe?

Pascal's wager is faulty because there are million of religions out there and they can't all be true. It also assumes that there is a hell and a heaven.

It also assumes that God isn't someone who would reward atheists and punish theists.

Aringarosa:

Stephen Hawking has nothing to do with biology?

The fact remains you are violating your own rules. You cannot posit an illogical being to answer a logical question. There are two possibilities either God came from nothing or God is infinite which violates your rules. God is not a logical concept. Therefore you can posit anything illogical (like the mystical chimney) and still satisfy your argument. God is not the simplest explanation. What about the Universe creating itself? What about a dog creating the universe?

Pascal's wager is faulty because there are million of religions out there and they can't all be true. It also assumes that there is a hell and a heaven.

It also assumes that God isn't someone who would reward atheists and punish theists.

And there it is, there it ends. At this point you are now confusing whether or not God exists with the nature, qualities or characteristics of God which cannot be deduced. Largely, only his effects can be known deducing a cause by design. How is it that we have the capacity to understand this logic: Systems have a design that operate with a specific function to accomplish a goal. The space program would be a good example, and then we landed on the moon. Was that a "Theoretical Accident"? From a position of human ignorance and knowledge, you are ascribing human limitations and conditions onto an agency that necessarily transcends what it created in the first place.

You agree that man can create, in a manner of speaking, yes? We really manipulated and create conditions conducive to an outcome, we integrate, synthesize and deconstruct. We analyze and discover but we really don't create something molecule by molecule; we let the forces of "Nature" do that. If we can do all that, what exactly, excludes a creator for us? If we are "made in the image and likeness of said God"? Image only, "Mystical Chimney" taking a known object in your experience(empirical)and imparting supernatural qualities to it. Similar to Anthropomorphizing. Do you really believe cartoons are real? God is not only is in what he creates but independent of it. Perhaps like the artist is in his art. Ultimately unknowable in his essence/nature until perhaps an afterlife.

Logic require both Deductive and Inductive, Analytical and Synthetic, A Priori and A Posteriori thought.

Require(S)

That is From Hawking's own mouth.

You are committing the Fallacy of a Bad Analogy with the Chimney. A Creator being an illogical concept defies linear logic. The universe is therefore God for you? The universe creating itself is unsound and invalid circular reasoning akin, again, to reducing the causes for creation to infinity. A dog is another facetious attempt. Violating my rules? They are the rules of logical argument. Now you are indulging a Straw Man: To Contortion the argument into your rogue brand of sophomoric legalities. Something is Creator and the effects of the creator is creation(Something). God being outside/independent of that creation(universe). God is not Infinity itself but he is infinite-do not confuse the two. Nothing, does not exist by definition. What you suggest is the very etymology of the word "NO THING" therefore there would be nothing and you and I would not be debating and speculating. Nature of God v.s. Existence of God is an Apples and Oranges comparison. Perhaps a Venn Diagram or Boolean Loops might help to establish validity in your mind. The Wager just implies that you cannot lose the "Bet" if you bet all you have that God exists.

It just occurred to me that I may have miscommunicated and you misunderstood the reasoning behind the 10^53 Billions of years for life to spontaneously occur. That would be the very definition of impossibility, given that the universe is estimated only to be 14 Billion years old. Therefore, life would require a Catalyst in some opinions and a Creator in mine. That was my example of a mathematical certainty indicating a creator, if not requiring one.

White007:

Logic require both Deductive and Inductive, Analytical and Synthetic, A Priori and A Posteriori thought.

Require(S)

That is From Hawking's own mouth.

You are committing the Fallacy of a Bad Analogy with the Chimney. A Creator being an illogical concept defies linear logic. The universe is therefore God for you? The universe creating itself is unsound and invalid circular reasoning akin, again, to reducing the causes for creation to infinity. A dog is another facetious attempt. Violating my rules? They are the rules of logical argument. Now you are indulging a Straw Man: To Contortion the argument into your rogue brand of sophomoric legalities. Something is Creator and the effects of the creator is creation(Something). God being outside/independent of that creation(universe). God is not Infinity itself but he is infinite-do not confuse the two. Nothing, does not exist by definition. What you suggest is the very etymology of the word "NO THING" therefore there would be nothing and you and I would not be debating and speculating. Nature of God v.s. Existence of God is an Apples and Oranges comparison. Perhaps a Venn Diagram or Boolean Loops might help to establish validity in your mind. The Wager just implies that you cannot lose the "Bet" if you bet all you have that God exists.

White007:

It just occurred to me that I may have miscommunicated and you misunderstood the reasoning behind the 10^53 Billions of years for life to spontaneously occur. That would be the very definition of impossibility, given that the universe is estimated only to be 14 Billion years old. Therefore, life would require a Catalyst in some opinions and a Creator in mine. That was my example of a mathematical certainty indicating a creator, if not requiring one.

You'e arguing from ignorance again. Just because something seems complicated, doesn't mean there is a creator. You are positing an illogical being. I say you can't just do that. Because I can posit any illogical being in place of your God and your argument will stay true. You have completely missed the point of the mystical chimney. You can attribute all the effects that you attribute to god to the mystical chimney. It doesn't have to be a mystical chimney. If you think we're just anthropomorphic things. It could be something completely alien us. And no, I don't believe in cartoons, and I don't believe in God.

"God exists with the nature, qualities or characteristics of God which cannot be deduced."

How do you differentiate that from just nature?

" From a position of human ignorance and knowledge, you are ascribing human limitations and conditions onto an agency that necessarily transcends what it created in the first place."

How else are we supposed to know anything but through our eyes? You can't just say.

"Oh you're too human to understand."

But that is the only way we know how to understand.

"God is not only is in what he creates but independent of it."

How do you know if you've never seen or touch him? How can you claim to know something about something you do not understand yourself? Have you spoken to him? You sure make a lot of claims about God without any proof. For the sake of argument. Let's say he's real. How do you then go about making those claims?

"The Wager just implies that you cannot lose the "Bet" if you bet all you have that God exists"

I just explained to you, you can. Because there are thousands of other religions who have different rules on how to get to their version of heaven. You are also disqualifying the possibility of a God who would reward atheists and punish theists.

"You are committing the Fallacy of a Bad Analogy with the Chimney. A Creator being an illogical concept defies linear logic. The universe is therefore God for you?"

And I say if you start arguing with something that is illogical then all bets are off. I could come up with any illogical explanation for the beginning of the universe. What is the difference between God making the universe and the chimney puffing the universe into existence? This chimney is also outside space and time and also breaks your rules.

Anyway. I don't think we would agree on this one. It seems like you are not getting my points and I might not be getting your points. But I appreciate the lively debate. I have to go to work