- #151
agnostictheist
- 57
- 0
lets ask what SEEMS to be a easier question, Whats the PROOF we exist?
Is There Proof That God Exists?
- Thread starter HIGHLYTOXIC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the existence of God and the nature of belief, emphasizing that proof of God is inherently elusive and subjective. Participants argue that personal experiences, often through meditation, can lead to a profound understanding of God that transcends traditional notions of faith. Some express skepticism about the need for God in modern society, suggesting that reliance on the concept of God can lead to dangerous conflicts. The conversation also touches on the relationship between science and spirituality, with some asserting that both can coexist and that new theories may bridge the gap between the two. Ultimately, the dialogue reflects a deep exploration of belief, experience, and the quest for understanding the divine.
- #152
Merlin
- 32
- 0
The BB theory doesn't go beyond that point.
Time and the space dimensions of our universe are properties of it and not something that it sits in. Thus, there was no 'before' time began.
We can conjecture some other time-like dimensions outside the universe, but it may be intrinsically unknowable.
Hmmmm interesting, I was aware of conventional science allowing that space time is our universe and "we" can't be outside IT. It isn't a bubble because there isn't anything outside the bubble! But that's all science can give us now. so you are saying that space/ time is and "was" infinite. If you are saying that space/time "started" there must be something before the start. ( I don't trust the zero point vac fluc.scam) However If it was infinite (something that I may not accept), there would be NO beginning and NO end and BTW no big bang. I feel that there was something like a big bang. I tend to squash the Infinite parallel universe religion, because it takes more faith (for me) to believe it than intelligent design!
How hard would it be for an advanced race of beings (where, or better yet WHAT did THEY come from?), to make a universe? We will be nice and say that these beings are "just" 2.5 thousand million years more advanced than we. So we would be pond scum in their "eyes," no, WAIT! pond scum would be a hundreds of millions of years more advanced than we! (at that point)! Think of us as an amino acid base and they are the humans! We are aproxx. that advanced over the first stirrings of life on this planet. Hmmm, new query... How to talk to an semi alive acid goop ? With computer power increasing in exponential leaps, and the explosive implications of human genetic research in the last, Oh... 50 years, it isn't hard to imagine this unfolding much faster. Much faster! Say less than 100,000 years. Or 1000 years! oh yeah. But we won't be here more than 100 years..too bad for us![/size][/color]
Merlin
Time and the space dimensions of our universe are properties of it and not something that it sits in. Thus, there was no 'before' time began.
We can conjecture some other time-like dimensions outside the universe, but it may be intrinsically unknowable.
Hmmmm interesting, I was aware of conventional science allowing that space time is our universe and "we" can't be outside IT. It isn't a bubble because there isn't anything outside the bubble! But that's all science can give us now. so you are saying that space/ time is and "was" infinite. If you are saying that space/time "started" there must be something before the start. ( I don't trust the zero point vac fluc.scam) However If it was infinite (something that I may not accept), there would be NO beginning and NO end and BTW no big bang. I feel that there was something like a big bang. I tend to squash the Infinite parallel universe religion, because it takes more faith (for me) to believe it than intelligent design!
How hard would it be for an advanced race of beings (where, or better yet WHAT did THEY come from?), to make a universe? We will be nice and say that these beings are "just" 2.5 thousand million years more advanced than we. So we would be pond scum in their "eyes," no, WAIT! pond scum would be a hundreds of millions of years more advanced than we! (at that point)! Think of us as an amino acid base and they are the humans! We are aproxx. that advanced over the first stirrings of life on this planet. Hmmm, new query... How to talk to an semi alive acid goop ? With computer power increasing in exponential leaps, and the explosive implications of human genetic research in the last, Oh... 50 years, it isn't hard to imagine this unfolding much faster. Much faster! Say less than 100,000 years. Or 1000 years! oh yeah. But we won't be here more than 100 years..too bad for us![/size][/color]
Merlin
Last edited:
- #153
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
Not infinite, but finite and boundless like the surface of a sphere.
- #154
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
Any chance we can subvert this thread and pretend its asking the reasonable question 'whats's the EVIDENCE that God exists?'
- #155
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
Occam's razor states that for any given set of evidence, if two hypotheses fit that evidence equally, the one which makes the fewest assumptions is more likely to be true.
If you don't accept the reproducibility of the research as evidence of a correlation of some sort, you would have to account for it by inventing hypothses which would have to become more and more elaborate as further research eliminated potential sources of interference. The simpler hypothesis is probably the original one.
The fewer assumptions you have to make, the more probable your hypothesis.
- #156
agnostictheist
- 57
- 0
Are you reffering to Imagnary time, and hawking-non boundary proposal?
if so I don't see this has a argument aganist God, hawking states that there was no specfic time, in which the universe came to be, also from what I think he says - its like there is no past future and present, for example:
A---------B
the movement to a - b is a passage from past to present, so Hawking does not deny there is a past and presnt, and what not - but then there is anther form of "time" which can be seen like this
C
D
and in this oriention, there is no past future etc!
hawking now claims (IF I am correct) that the universe simply is , no external is needed and thus the universe is "BE"
While this maybe have merit, it might be needless to ristrictive, if what I understand is correct, for starters God IF he exists does so out of time, thus attempting to added lines like "God frist did this" is somewhat a problem in the languge of everyday, and is applying some human concepts to a Godly prespective.
secondly, Why not argue that God "created" a system, that was set-up and also had some of his likeness, much in the same was has A balls relfection might be a circle, both may contain a likeness - eg circleness... a form of infinity, and likewise God and the universe are both enternal (yet of a different sort)?
in this senerio, the universe very much simply "BE" - but much like a relfection MUST have an object, the object does not need the reflection! so the argument does not need time! for the argument steams for likeness, not the process of getting it.
Of course this is metaphyical and not science, but Hawking never claims to be atheist, he himself claims to be a pantheist?? of sorts, or agnostic - maybe a deist?
the point is hawking makes claim that if God exists, its science can't answer a yes or a no, to the question
Yes now we have a better question, asking for proof is an impossible task, within any worthwhile manner, Evidence is anther ball game, however Evidence itself to can be sub-setted, there are many different types of "evidence" some more realible than others, and it depends what type of philosophy you subscribe to (rationalists, empiricalists or even a combo of the two)
While I don't think there is any evidence for God... with the exception of POSSIBLE "personal revelations" etc - but one can argue aganist these, and there is a greater chance of been sucked into some scam, the universe does tend to have some, limits : eg its not that anything is possible, but anything that is possible no matter how unlikey will happen... this limition could be seen has a sort of "desgin" but it doesn't mean thus the only anwser by default is God...and even if it is doesn't mean a personal one?
I would like to see what Chroot, says of this... not coz I am having a debate elsewere.. but coz, some kind of review form other debators which hold more info on physics (and cosomology?) maybe able to add input... even those there is a strong philosophical and theological spin to this.
So my answer is Yes there is Evidence of sorts for IF God existence, this is how he might do it, but the evidence is only Yes or no.. on the basis of opinion. and to claim agnostism alone is somewhat unware that the same arguments for no, are the same for yes, depending on what spin you intailly put: (not spin in a physics sense)
to ask the question Does God exist would mean we must have an experiment of some sort, that can test from a godly point of veiw to, I wish people the best of luck in this... coz its not possible.
Please note: when I refer to God I mean a judo-christian God, i have note talked about the different types of God eg Bharma.. but asking who is God..is anther question!
- #157
Rader
- 765
- 0
Last edited:
- #158
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
No matter how emotionally appealing it seems, 'evidence' that is purely a subjective feeling does not justify belief - as I already said, a visit to a mental institution will confirm that.
- #159
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
agnostictheist,
The point of my stating that time is theorized to begin at the big bang is not necessarily to exclude the possibility of God, but to answer the common and rather silly claim that there HAD to be something before the big bang and the latter had to have a 'cause' (with the obvious implication that somehow that cause could only have been old Jehovah).
I don't understand your argument here. Can you make it again using sentences?
The point of my stating that time is theorized to begin at the big bang is not necessarily to exclude the possibility of God, but to answer the common and rather silly claim that there HAD to be something before the big bang and the latter had to have a 'cause' (with the obvious implication that somehow that cause could only have been old Jehovah).
I don't understand your argument here. Can you make it again using sentences?
- #160
Netme
- 56
- 0
God didnt create people, people created god. People believe in god bc they want to. Its not easy living in this rotten world. There is nothing certain while living on this world so people use god to create an imaginary illusion that helps keep them at peace. Without god, we are insignificant beings in a place without reason to our existence. Some people can accept this, while others need god as a reason to live.
Last edited:
- #161
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
First off, to believe (or know) begins with consciousness, for without it, we wouldn't even know that we exist. In which case we have to ask ourselves, what is the nature of consciousness and where does it come from?
Indeed, isn't this the very idea which facillitates the plausibility of a Universal Mind which is Ever-Present and All-Knowing, and exists in the here and now?
For what is consciousness, but the quality of knowing? And how else do we experience it, except through that which is Ever-Present and Ever-Lasting? (i.e., in the here and now). Hence it would seem the qualities of consciousness are contingent with the qualities of a Universal Mind.
Think about it!
- #162
phoenixthoth
- 1,600
- 2
is it always unjustified to believe you are in love because it is based on a purely subjective feeling and not something that has undergone a thurough scientific study (of course, by that it seems that that must not involve psychology)? granted, it may "really" be puppy love or infatuation, but sometimes it may even be the case that one is, in fact, in love though since they can't prove it to you it must be the case that ... what? that they can't prove it or that it's not true?
other questions: can you have an unjustified belief that happens to be correct or is that something you can prove to be impossible? is it possible for an illogical argument to accidentally end in a correct conclusion or are all conclusions of illogical arguments incorrect?
right, or one could have a series of subjective experiences leading them to believe any scientific theory, that they exist, that they think, that they have free will, etc., which leads into:
how is this objective verification performed? i guess what I'm really asking is how is it been proven to be objective and what is the definition of reasonable in "beyond a reasonable doubt"? seems to me that though you can't really prove it's objective yet still believe it is, you're falling into the category of it being emotionally appealing to believe that science removes the taint of subjectivity.
what isn't a psychological event, really? what isn't coming in through the ego, subject
to misinterpretation? maybe you think that doubting everything is absurd, especially when it comes to doubting the objectivity of science and/or doubting what our senses tell us (eg when we *look* at readings on a measurment tool). that brings us back to what reasonable doubt means. one person's reasonable is another's absurdity.interesting how God is goobledegook or not depending on what's convienient for you. for any belief, a stubborn person will refuse to accept it no matter what. the thing is that i am an agnostic theist of sorts and i believe that neither logic nor observation is going to ever prove God exists (with certain caveats). i also believe that neither logic nor observation are infinite in an ultimate sense: of course logic is potentially infinite in that one can construct infinitely many formulas to study but its scope is limited. and observation won't ever establish any infinite trait as far as i know, at least not in finite time. in short, i think "God exists" is undecidable though true nonetheless. so is that belief unjustified? of course but then again so is belief in the opposite position. the logical option is to neither believe God exists nor God does not exist.
in regards to other posts, to be a smart aleck, even if man created god, then god exists. btw, not everyone who believes in God does so for emotional or psychological satisfaction. i find writing "God exists" no more and no more less emotionally rewarding than writing "1+1=2" or "God does not exist." I'm not expecting reward in the afterlife for good deeds nor am i expecting bad deeds to be punished (by God). so at least in my case, it's not like I'm a doggie who does tricks for treats and goes to the doghouse when I'm bad.
interesting that you mention mental institutions. delusion is kind of interesting. there apparently is such a thing as a shared psychotic episode and so i wonder if every scientist who performs one experiment is deluding themselves into believing a certain outcome. that's probably as integrous as suggesting that all people who believe in God are delusional. of course, popularity has nothing to do with how credible theism is yet it does have something to do with how credible a scientific theory is. it seems that you think it's a near certainty that everyone who believes in God is deluding themselves and each other and a near certainty that scientists aren't doing the same thing.
you may want to check out the phd thesis "quantitative and qualitative analysis and calibration of the levels of human consciousness" by david hawkins, published in 95 by veritas along with "the eye of the i: from which nothing is hidden" and "i: reality and subjectivity" by the same author.
i wonder if there was supposed evidence of God, would you even bother to look into it or would you presume it to be incorrect, assume it's wrong, and not check it out because it seems emotionally appealing to you to not believe in God or at least appear to not believe proof of God exists. (after all, I'm not sure you ever said you didn't believe in God; you may have just been making the point that there is no scientific evidence for it.)
Last edited:
- #163
Rader
- 765
- 0
Mumeishi, i know you like to use that mental intitution excuse, but you can not argue that if we all needed shrinks, we would all be in the hospital. You and i are not, you can not use that excuse.
The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.
You have a very good chance of understanding some day. I did not give that ethical reason for scorn. That reason can be given through scorn or love but it was not.
Here is a link to help you understand.
http://www.stjohndc.org/beatitud/beatitud.htm
To say that nothing is real unless it is measurable is already an abstract position, is it not? This proposition itself is nowhere tangible, visible or measurable; the argument of tangibility is itself created from the intangible. Everything has its derivitive in the subjunctive. God, thoughts, emotions, material world.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #164
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
Believing that you are 'in love' is only a statement about being in a particular psychological state and not a statement about the objective world. Few would deny that 'experiencing God' exists as a psychological state.
Of course that is possible. You can be right 'for the wrong reasons'. It could be a coincidence or a correlation which arose from natural selection or some such. Again, I'm not trying to do the impossible by proving that there is no God (whatever that means), I'm trying to show that there is no valid evidence for belief.
They could but none of those beliefs would be justified on that 'evidence' alone. None of them.
I've already covered this. The scientific method is proven (whenever I use this word I don't mean it in an absolute sense) historically. If an experiment provides the same positive results when repeated by others, you either accept that there is some correlation that needs explaining or you have to invoke some sort of political or cosmic conspiracy theory to explain it. The more assumptions you have to introduce to explain it, the more uncertainty you are necessarily introducing, therefore the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions has a greater probability of being correct. This is the basis od Occam's Razor, I think. It is simpler, and thus more probable, to accept that there is some force that acts on apples and other objects on earth, each time we drop one, rather than invoke complex, question-begging, assumption-making explanations such as that there is a race of invisible beings which are moving the apples in order to trick us or that the apples fall because we expect them to.
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
what isn't a psychological event, really? what isn't coming in through the ego, subject
The alternative explations would be more complex, beg more questions and make more assumptions. If 'everything is subjective', I can control reality with my thoughts and not only fly etc, but make subjectivism false just by disbelieving in it. It seems to me that subjectivism is not only absurd, but a philosophy of desperation. It's inherent skepticism (even if successful) would undermine theism as much as science and even erode its own truthfulness. Its based un an insistence on absolute certainty, which is not available. Our relationship to reality is more fuzzy and probabalistic than that. I prefer a more pragmatic approach which actally engages with reality to this sort of vanishing-up-ones-own-rectum sophistry.
Everything we are aware of is necessarily a psychological event, yes. But the issue is which of those events is also an event which occurred externally to the brain and mind.
I understand approximately what God is supposed to be but cannot reconcile his supposed qualities with each other or with reality or scripture. Nor can do ideas like infinitely powerful seem to make sense under scrutiny. I understand the term 'God' in a similar way to 'unknowable square circle'.
Or, refuse to disbelieve no matter what. This is why we need actual evidence not just conviction. Got any?
This sort of thinking (which is based on the presupposition of God in order to justfy belief aka. 'pulling yourself up by your bootstrap' aka. 'begging the question' aka 'circular reasoning') creates a very favourable environment for the virus-like meme-complex to continue to flourish in your mind. Best of luck to it.
How can they both be justified when only one of them can be true?
I'm not convinced. And I don't think you can necessarily be fully aware of the psychological impact of a belief system.
Even when they do so independently or are trying to prove competing theories? There is no evidence for this proposed (invented) phenomenon, so you are introducing complex assumptions as an alternative to there simply sometimes being repeatable correlations between phenomena. I do see self-induced psychosis at work in some places though
You need evidence to support either of these hypootheses, in the absense of this you can always clutch at straws as you are doing. Science is not decided by votes.
Of course I would look at the evidence. In fact, I'd say that I have quite strong natural religious tendencies, its just that I have strong critical thinking tendencies too and I find the idea of deluding myself abhorrent. I've been looking for ways to express and explore those tendencies without tasking on nutty beliefs, through paganism and later through Zen Buddhism, so far unsuccessfully, but exploring it through art is looking promising. What do you think the emotional appeal of atheism is? I suppose I find the idea of exploring actual reality to the best of my ability appealing, rather than blindly accepting dogma or delusion, and learning about science can be quite wonderful in a quasi-religious way, when you start to form a single, unified picture of everything unfolding from a common source.
Last edited:
- #165
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
Some forms of delusion are more socially acceptable than others.
And the ethical reason for Santa existing is that some kids are naughty. Therefore Santa exists.
I shall pray to understand one day and to stop being so scornful.
This is a strawman argument, because I've never said this. Try again.
- #166
phoenixthoth
- 1,600
- 2
love exists.
so is looking at readings on a measurment device and reading reports of supposed others who supposedly have similar data subjective experiences or not?
proven to be what? objective? as objective as possible, whatever that means? perfect?
how about two assumptions: (1) Is and (2) there are no reasons.
one question: why ask why?
how complex is that?
"If 'everything is subjective', I can control reality with my thoughts" umm... how does that follow?
absolute certainty is available.
what if what was really objectively true wasn't pragmatic at all? would you still want to be objective? do you want to know what the truth is at any cost?
well, even the smallest kind of infinity in math, the set of natural numbers, is hard to comprehend. consider all the open problems in number theory. and that's just level uno. so it's not hard to understand why a limited mind would have trouble grasping the infinitely powerful which one would imagine would at least rival N in complexity. perhaps you're wondering about such questions as "can God create a stone it can't lift?" is that what you mean? there are a couple of ways to deal with this, including the analogy to the undecidability of certain statements in N and the relaxation of there being two truth values. in a three truth value system, T, F, and mu, the answer yes has truth value mu and the answer no has truth value mu; no contradiction. on the other hand, it doesn't really matter if logic can grasp something which is practically by definition, if there were one, that is ungraspable.
a pantheist believes that God is the totality of all that is. I've been told that spinoza is similar to this but i haven't really checked that philosopher out much.
seems like if you define God "weakly," like by saying God is love or God is perfect or God is all that is, it obviously exists but one has trouble attributing such things as consciousness, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, etc, to it. on the other hand, if one defines God "strongly," by defining it to be conscious, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, etc, then one runs into the problem with proving it exists.
what would constitute evidence either for or against the existence of God?
i said that both were UNjustified. besides, the answer to the question "does God exist" could be yes with truth value mu and no with truth value mu. it's not the case that either of them has to be true.
oh, and anyone else is? why would i desire to believe in God? why would i need to believe in God?
so since living in a matrix, for example, would be a more complex assumption than we are not, that proves that we're not?
neither is theism.
what i mean is that there is some correlation between how many scientists have adopted a belief vs whether or not it is considered scientifically valid by both scientists and the general public.
are your critical thinking abilities infinite? do you think it's even infinitesimally possible that you will ever be able to wrap your head around God? i went through belief systems like a junkie through heroin, starting and ending with some form of theism. the end state was not the result of an inner debate. if it were, i might share it, but it wasn't. I'm not sure atheism has an emotional appeal, at least not the same appeal for everyone. there are a host of reasons why someone would be athiest. it's not that i think critical thinking or science should be thrown out the window. indeed, i think they should be exploited to their maximum benefit whereas others i won't mention would rather your critical thinking skills be dulled. but i also believe that not only is science completely irrelevant to God one way or the other, critical thinking skills in general lead me, at least, to believe that critical thinking skills won't solve the issue. being that real life is more complex than math, in a sense, and some statements in math are undecidable, it seems plausible that not only do undecidable statements exist, but that "God exists" is one of them. that means trying to decide it logically is no more than an exercise in logic and will never be finished. i believe that even if there were a logically correct proof of God, or a being who exhibited finite traits it great abundance, there will always be someone who refuses to accept it.
not that you'll find a proof either way (i don't mean it to be), but you may or may not find what's on my discussion forum relevant:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi
Last edited by a moderator:
- #167
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
As a psychological event with a series of corresponding neurological events, not as a substance I can buy by the pound. God exists to Judeo-Christian types in the same way, just as Santa exists to kids, and Amun existed to the ancient Egyptians. All of these are dependent on our minds having a particular nature - this is far from the sort of reality being ascribed to God by theists.
Yes, but not JUST a psychological event. That's the point.
As objective as possible. That's all that can be done.
I don't understand.
Because if there is no objectivity, then if I believe something is true then it is true. Therefore I can make things true by decis=ding that they are true. There is no external reality to inhibit this. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not justified absolute certainty.
Do you mean that the truth might be metaphysical? What have you got?
Yes, 'Mu' would be a good answer to that question. And you know what 'Mu' means (assuming you are using it in the sense originating from Zen)? It means you are asking an absurd question. It is an absurd question in the same way that 'how many corners does a square circle have?' is an absurd quastion. You are asking a question about an incongruous, absurd concept. By the way, I have 'mu' in my name - it means 'nobody'.
Seems I missed your argument to show that a 'weakly defined' God 'obviously exists'. Do you mean:
-God is love
-Love exists
-Therefore God exists?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No, please... tell me that's not what you mean.
I don't think there could ever be evidence against the existence of an entity which is defined as 'unknowable' (that's why I believe in the Unknowable Unicorns of Ulan Bator). In terms of evidence, for God, all he would have to do it perform some easily accomplished and indisputable miracle and I'd be convinced. If I and thousands of others witness a thousand angels lift the White House and drop it on Osama Bin Laden's head. Or really anything else clear which was not better explained in naturalistic terms. Jesus came back and didn't die this time and performed miracles we could all see and even scrutinise etc. I would certainly reassess my beliefs. If Jesus did it for Thomas, why won't God do it for me?
I see (I think). And that means God exists in a way that Santa and the 'Unknowable Square Circle of Zog' don't because...?
Because you are afraid of death. Because you are afraid of the responsibility of being the arbiter of your own morality. Because you don't feel comfortable not knowing all the answers. Because you like the idea that the moral decisions you make in life are part of some grand cosmic drama. Because you felt more secure when you had a daddy to tell you what was right and wrong. Because you are genetically disposed towards religiosity... etc
No it just makes it less credible. Just like the idea that we are the daydream of a giant space-goat. That movie has a lot to answer for in terms of propagating BS philosophy.
That would be besides the point, but anyway how do you think theism is decided? Well researched reference to scripture? Who's to say that scripture is correct unless its just consensually (word?) accepted?
If one scientist can show that his hypothesis fits the evidence better than that accepted by the majority, then his hypothesis (all else being equal) is the better hypothesis whether the majority like it or not. This is how some scientific revolutions begin, eg quantum mechanics, sun-centred solar system etc. To not accept it would be to violate scientific principles.
A 'fact' in scientific terms is a piece of information which is widely-accepted enough to be taught intact eg. the Earth is round, evolution etc. Reality is more fuzzy than that, but learning facts is far easier for school-kids etc than learning the complexities of dispute, which is usually reserved for higher levels of education.
I cannot justifiable 'know' there is no God. But the 'God hypothesis' is just one of an unlimited and equal body of unknowable untestable hypotheses some theistic, some not. This background of vanishingly small hypothetical possibilities is the default state of knowledge. If we believed things just because their possibility could not be excluded we would be like extreme schizophrenics with as many beliefs as they have thoughts. We would be paralysed with indecision. There is no rationality to believing in anyone of these ideas or acting as if they were true, when there are other alternatives supported by actual evidence. It is only the persistent, consistent existence of supporting evidence that can pull a hypothesis from this virtual froth.
- #168
phoenixthoth
- 1,600
- 2
prove it.
which part(s)? btw, I'm not saying that that's my position.
i'm not getting how "if I believe something is true then it is true" follows from "there's no objectivity."
is that what i said?
what do you mean by metaphysical? i think it's possible that there are truths that are non-physical and non-energetic unless one has real lose definitions of what physical means. even with those lose definitions of physical, it's possible that there are metaphysical truths.
once i was in a phase where i wanted to believe in God but i clinged to rationality and critical thinking as the end alls and be alls and so i really, deparately wanted an answer to the question "can God create a stone it cannot lift." the response i got was something like, "can uga buga widget a buga uga?" i think his point was that talking about God is a waste of time; in some sense, it transcends description.
yup, that's what can happen when one defines God weakly. existence is the easy part but consciousness, perfection, and the three omni's are "hard" to prove. on the other hand, if you define God to have those properties, then existence is the problem. I'm using unused cpu resources to look at whether or not there's a way the carpet can fit the room without a corner of the rug coming up in one of the corners. with a pantheistic approach, consciousness is pretty weak, perfection is seemingly a matter of opinion, and i can only get two of the three omni's.
is that the definition of God? i think it would be more correct that one can know all about God but the only way to know God is to be at least omniscient. in some sense, many people don't even know themselves completely yet they evidently exist though all one seems to be able to do is know about themself and not truly know themself. there is no such thing as an indisputable miracle. it would have to be finite in nature, albeit big. and then you would have to wonder if God caused the miracle or not or if it was just a really weird coincidence that spawns generations of research until it can be "explained" (you know, like creation). even if thousands of others witness something, that still doesn't prove they're not all experiencing a mass hallucination. again, popularity is not proof. in addition to "why won't God do it for me," why not also ask:
1. would i want to have the choice taken away
2. do i really want God to do it for me
3. does there have to be a reason you can possibly understand
4. can God be pursuaded to do anything
5. do i know the best way for myself for God to do it
6. is God not already doing it (related to 1 and 2)?
etc, etc
the "evidence" that seems to indicate that santa doesn't exist is that, at least as far as i know, no one is going around once a year distributing presents to homes. and so that while "God exists" may have truth mu, "santa exists" seems to have truth value false unless existence includes fictituous existence, in which case it's true, evidently. seems to me that in order for a square circle to have any "sense" whatsoever, the "law" of identity must be violated. eg, let S be the unit circle and let S be the boundary of [0,1]x[0,1]. S!=S but S is a square circle. in order to talk about a square circle, one must yank that rug up from the room rather brutally. if you assume that the rules of logic are inviolate (meaning that even an omnipotent being can't violate them yet i just did), then the truth value of "a square circle exists" is not mu but false thus differentiating that from the truth value of "God exists" which is possibly mu.
having said that, could it be that there is a santa but just one whose nature is inaccurately described in myth? in other words, a santa (and i don't just mean some guy named santa) that exists but isn't at all like he is descibed? oh wait, those are the same words pretty much... well, that's what some theists think about God: one exists but just one whose nature is inaccurately described in myth.
what does God have to do with death? why would you think I'm afraid of death? i don't get morality from God whatsoever. i don't believe absolute right or wrong exist. believing God exists doesn't give one all the answers (or even very many answers), at least not for me. in fact, the more i think about it, the more i wonder if "why" always has an answer. covered morality: it don't exist. as hamlet said, "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so." everything would seem to be apart of the cosmos whether you believe in God or not and one is free to see things as a drama or not. actually, my dad never told me much of anything and neither does God. the genetic thing is interesting... out of the set of six parents and grandparents, only one was religious so i guess it isn't a dominant gene. is this what your "critical thinking" assumes about all theists or just me? I'm sure you've seen these characteristics before so i guess that makes it always true.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
my own personal choice had nothing to do with what i believe in being "voted on" by anyone. while your generalizations no doubt apply to at least some people, i do doubt they apply to all.
well, what i mainly would like to say that believing "God exists" and "God does not exist" is not logically justified. someone's going to be correct, i bet, without having a justification.
btw, slippery slope. if we believe in God, we have to believe everything a crazy person says and everything we can't disprove. in short, believing in God would result in the world collapsing. is that something that will happen only when all people believe in God, because a lot do already, even einstein, kaku, hawking, etc, and i don't think they believe everything they can't disprove.
- #169
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
I've already argued that the alternative (philosophical idealism) would require more assumptions and thus is less credible, and that it is self-defeating. Another criticism is that the neural pathways that provide our experiences can be traced physically, as can other physical>mental causal relationships such as the fact that if I put drugs into my bloodstream it would affect the nature of my consciousness and the fact that a neaurosurgeon can directly influence the nature of consciousness in a fairly predictable way by stimulating or interfering with specific areas of the brain. the only idealist explanation for that would be that some cosmic conspiracy is trying to make us think that there is a physical basis for consciousness. This begs so many questions that it is absurd. And even if it were true, we would have no hope of seeing through the deception.
I don't understand it at all. Try putting it a different way.
My mind is subject to will. If all is mind, all is potentially subject to will.
You said that absolute certainty is possible. I'm saying that it doesn't matter because such certainty is unjustified. What is not achievable is absolute knowlege.
Perhaps - like mathematical and logical truths for example.
Perhaps, but just because it 'transcends description' doesn't mean it exists or is true. There is still no difference in principle from the concept of the Unknowable Square Circle or the Ineffable Pink Elephant which also 'transcend description'.
Why are you so determined to believe, when you are struggling to demonstrate its existence?
What's the difference between knowing about God and knowing God. You mean you can know something exists without knowing what that something is? Is that possible? And if you don't know what it is, you might be mistaken something for 'God' when it is actually something else like 'activity in your temporal lobe'.
Mass delusion is only possible under some circumstances. If you filmed an event and a variety of 'unprimed' people came and saw first hand and the vast majority agreed there could be no reasonable grounds for dispute.
It wouldn't be - I'm still free.
Of course! Why is he hiding anyway?
Well, theist seem able to claim to understand well enough to insist that people live in a particular way. Anyway, all I was after was a simple demonstration of his existence, not an insight into the way he thinks. If he's hiding and even creating a false picture of a universe which is entirely naturalistic, for a reason you can't explain then I would have to question what else he is deceiving us about. Perhaps its all a test to eliminate the gullible people (theists) who will accept things unquestioningly. Perhaps he is evil or indifferent. What right do theist have to claim the know the intentions of a being that is unknowable (as well as unevidenced and incredible)?
Evidently not. But what chance do I have of seeing 'the truth' when 'the truth' is pulling the wool over my eyes? How can I have responsibility for not accepting God when it is his secretiveness or even deceptiveness which has damned me?
See above
No
Yadda yadda Yadda
In that case God exists to the same extent that I can clap with one hand.
So you claim to know it exists but you don't know what it is. It amazes me that a bright person like you is prepared to accept this claptrap.
It was a list of suggestions that's all. You tell me why you believe in God and not other untestable hypotheses? Does it give you a nice feeling inside?
If we are pat of a simulation, there's no way we could think our way out of it, so we are forced to accept some things as given. ie. that physics is real.
While we cannot know there is no X (when X is only partially defined and defined as unknowable) I'd say that I've already shown that believing in God is no more justified than believing that space aliens are controlling our thoughts and will use the most well-fed humans as fodder in the year 2013. It is irrational to remain in a state of indecision, the most rational action is to suspend doubt and pick the most well-evidenced hypothesis and act as if it were true.
I don't know about Kaku, but certainly Einstein and Hawking do not believe in God in any recognisable Judeo-Christian sense - more a shorthand for an unknown cause outside the universe, if it exists, whatever it might be - seems quite reasonable to me. People (including a minority of scientists) believe in God because the idea is appealing, not because it is rational.
And as Richard Dawkins put it:
Last edited:
- #170
Merlin
- 32
- 0
Reply to Mumeishi
agnostictheist, I will agree with most of what you've posted. I don't agree with Mumeishi. This debate has, like Mumeishi's universe, become a sphere that takes us back to the start.With nothing resolved.
It is much easier (for me and my universe or paradigm) to place faith in intelligent design than unproven theories. When the big bang or any cosmological model becomes fact, I'll accept it or any TOE, Only when is fact. And as I've said before, the metaphysical will merge with the physical, (and all physics) in the correct TOE.[/color]
MERLIN[/color] has the flu...[/color]
agnostictheist, I will agree with most of what you've posted. I don't agree with Mumeishi. This debate has, like Mumeishi's universe, become a sphere that takes us back to the start.With nothing resolved.
It is much easier (for me and my universe or paradigm) to place faith in intelligent design than unproven theories. When the big bang or any cosmological model becomes fact, I'll accept it or any TOE, Only when is fact. And as I've said before, the metaphysical will merge with the physical, (and all physics) in the correct TOE.[/color]
MERLIN[/color] has the flu...[/color]
- #171
phoenixthoth
- 1,600
- 2
that's not a proof.
assumptions: 1. something exists (be it an illusion or not, be it all in the mind or not). 2. there are no reasons.
the only question: 1. why ask why?
how complex is that? and what i mean by that is that you say that alternatives involve MORE assumptions and MORE questions are "begged."
this goes back to your quote in the beginning. you believe something, evidently not with absolute certainty, without any more than a plausibility argument. absolute knowledge is achievable, though i doubt absolutely and absolutely complete knowledge is achieveable.
of course. btw, nothing i say (or at least, not much that i say if anything) is intended to be taken as evidence for or against God. as I've said, i don't believe that's possible.
why? i don't know. i guess it's not that different from being "determined" to believe that the computer screen I'm looking at exists or that i exist. I'm not struggling to demonstrate its existence, actually. i don't think it's possible to.
well that concept may be better illustrated by analogy. what's the difference between knowing about genius and knowing genius (or insert any concept instead of genius). for one thing, a sudden leap in knowledge can occur when one is a genius. you can know all about a concept but until you walk a mile in that concept's shoes, metaphorically speaking, you don't know that concept. you can know all about love but something changes in how well you know love when you actually experience it for yourself. or sex. or drugs. examples abound.
the computer screen I'm looking at could also be actually something else like activity in my temporal lobe but as you've alluded to, that possibility requires more assumptions, begs more questions, and makes it less credible. i can want money real bad, but how often do people who want money real bad will start hallucinating a pile of gold in their garage? how many people are hallucinating God? while i think that for many, in fact, they may be hallucinating, i doubt that all of them are.
recording miracles has never seemed to convince everyone in the past. (eg the bible.) film of ufo's hardly convinces everyone that ufo's exist, so why would this be any different? people are just going to assume that the film has been cgi'ed by industrial light and magic. besides, who is to say what the source of the miracle is? why would it have to be God?
what i meant was that if you saw what was indisputable evidence for you. so if you saw such evidence, you would technically still have the choice to not believe it but you'd then be choosing between being rational and being free. the rest of the questions could possibly be more delicate and/or complex than you think. then again, possibly not.
correction: you can prove God exists to the same extent you can prove you can clap with one hand. being able to prove it exists has NOTHING to do with whether or not it does exist. btw, i can clap with one hand.
i've said this before. one can know about God but the only way to know all about God or to know God is to be at least omniscient. i realize what my limits are.
in the theology section on my discussion forum, there's a "why i believe in God" thread. it may answer your questions. sometimes, it gives me a nice feeling inside but other times, i does not. you can't possibly know what I'm talking about; trust me, it has not always been a "nice feeling inside."
if there is no way to get out of the simulation, then it doesn't seem to matter whether or not it is a simulation. but what if we can get out of it?
i'm not much of a abrahamic religion adherent myself though i used to be a while ago. i understood the thread title to be "what's the proof that god exists" and not "religions are correct."
Last edited:
- #172
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
So you'll accept one unproven hypothesis (ID) on faith, but not others, even though the latter have evidence and the former has none. OK, well you're a free man, you can think what you like.
- #173
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
There is no such thing as absolute proof in such matters, only evidence and probability. I've been over this several times now.
In science, really the question 'why?' is not asked, only 'what?' and 'how?'. It is simply an investigation into the nature of what all this is, whatever it ultimately is.
Do go on.
There is no justification for believing in gods in this day and age.
I don't have to try to believe these things. The evidence is so strong, consistent, and verifiable that believing these things did not exist would be more of a challenge.[/QUOTE]
'Knowing about' genius does not necessarily mean you understand its true nature. And being regarded as one by society doesn't either - its just something that happens to you.
- #174
agnostictheist
- 57
- 0
Ok Mumeishi, I accept the reason for this thread, and agree with you - butit doesn't stop me adding anther view!
your right that people tend to ask these questions with the tent to pin God behind it, personally I think its silly for theists, and well has other parties.
- #175
agnostictheist
- 57
- 0
I have not read the whole thread, so I make this a general comment, there is no such thing has absolute proof, depending on context and prespective - eg: ours (doesnt disagree with Mu statement)
But that does not mean thus there is no absolute proof.
argeed, why..etc, is more concered with philosophy, and ontology and metaphysics.
- some people or groups eg: Logical postivism, hold that concepts such as these are meangless, personaly I find this far to restrictive, but on the other hand, this sort of reasoning type does yeild reliable data/evidence and interprations.
If reffering to a xtian type God, this is missleading, rather God can do anything that is Good, and is all powerful (infinite- in his natures and attrubies) infinity comes in many forms and does not nesscerly mean without any except..eg: MUST be Good and Evil etc...
correct, on the other hand this could be again missleading, you would think a transcdant type God would not nesscerly be subject to OUR measurments, while may do so, has a contigent, God is not the kind of father that comes running in when the kids start to cry or want something.
then you would be more careful with the difference between God and god.
Hence my argument, but one that does not really say God does exist, for to answer that we need to be in a different prespective, for me God MAY exist, and if so How using for the most part deductive reasoning, and except the altertnative possiblities also. but to use only logic, science etc... is a gross error in finding ones way to God, one has to adimt that this also may easly lead us astray.
- #176
radagast
- 483
- 1
In the examples you give, there is no reason, whatsoever, to consider them self-aware. There is no decision making, on there part, that cannot be explained easier by deterministic behaviour.
Just so we don't argue at cross-definitions: Self-awareness - to be aware of one's own existense.
In this regards, then most apes are self-aware. Humans gain self-awareness at about the age of two. The test used for this involves a mirror. When the individual in front of the mirror realizes that the image is themselves, this is taken as 'de-facto' evidence of self-awareness. It is understood that they are self-aware, using this experiment, because their behaviour is markedly different from when they encounter another person/entity. Given this is what is used my the psycology papers I've read, it's the definition I use.
This property is, in no way, simple. It requires much brain/computation power. Machines have not yet attained any form of consciousness, much less self-awareness. This is not found in the simpler life forms.
Unless you can demonstrate the existence of a simple self-aware system, then I consider this dismissable on grounds that Occam's razor would deign it less rational.
Last edited:
- #177
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
To be honest, I'm having again I don't understand what you are saying here. What absolute proof do you think there can be? The nearest we seem to have IMO is logical or mathematical proof - truths which are neccessarily the case by given definition, but these sorts of proofs cannot be directly applied to the world - they are just self-consistent systems and the symbols they use have an 'Aristotlian' distinctness which the world rarely or never has. Even mathematical and logical proofs could be mistaken because there is always a possibility that the system used to make the calculation is in error. I don't see how you can get around this in any situation. And claims about rality have even more hurdles to absolute knowledge.
I'm not a fan of logical positivism as a whole, although I do find many of the things Wittgenstein said compelling. It seems quite simple to me - 'why?' means 'what is the purpose of...?', ao asking 'why' about the world would be meaningful if the universe had a purpose and meaningless if it did not. Easy.
What would be 'evil' about giving us a level-playing field? He is not testing people's goodness or how much they would support him if they realized he was real, he is testing their gullibility, the extent to which they accept emotionally appealing ideas without question. What kind of sick test is that?
Sure but I don't think he would be any sort of decent father at all if he disappears before the kids are born, never calls and then thrashes them (for eternity) when they don't even think he exists. And this father is supposed to be perfect goodness and love incarnate?!
The capital 'G' is a term of respect and adoration used by the followers of one god who now insist is the only one, and which it would be inappropriate for me to use.
Gravity elves MAY exist. Osiris MAY exist, Santa MAY exist, God MAY exist and really be waiting to reward those who make the most money or live the most fully and freely. There are as many of these untestable hypotheses as you can think of.
- #178
radagast
- 483
- 1
non-sequitur, the existence of god, which according to legend existed prior to humans, could therefore not be contigent on humans not believeing the it exists.
Simpler alternate views exists.
This has a basis that's flawed. It assumes probabilities, which there are no basis to assume. Factors are assumed to have been arrived at by chance, just because no mechanism is known. - aka "God of the Gaps" argument flaw.
Individually, human consciousness can increse/decrease. A coma is the lack of consciousness. Sleep is a reduced state of consciousness. Waking life is state of enhanced consciousness.
Other than this, explain how consciousness can increase. Intelligence would be hard pressed to equate to consciousness.
Actually, this has been shown to be incorrect. There are many simple systems that can be shown to be self-organizing. Simple computer systems can be shown to be self-organizing, without being programmed specifically to be self-organising.
If that was not the case. THEN GOD DOES NOT EXIST [/QUOTE]
I consider it definitely not the case.
- #179
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
There was a good article in the news a couple of days ago about research which showed that some animals were cable of 'thinking about thinking' and knowing when they didn't know. I can't find the darn thing now.
- #180
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,843
- 11
I saw it too, and can't find it either. But I do recall the general basis of the research.
The premis was, that if you can show that animals have doubts about a future course of action, then you have at least partially shown that they have consciousness.
They worked with chimps and bottle nosed dolphins (and humans). They gave each set of animals a series of cognitive tests of various difficulties. There were rewards for successful performance but they also provided a mechanism for the testee to skip any of the tests. Skipping was interpreted as showing that the testee had doubts about being able to solve that particular problem.
They studied the patterns of solution and skips for the three groups and showed that the chimps' and dolphins' patterns were similar to the human one. From this they concluded that the two animal groups had shown doubts, and hence that they were perhaps conscious.
The premis was, that if you can show that animals have doubts about a future course of action, then you have at least partially shown that they have consciousness.
They worked with chimps and bottle nosed dolphins (and humans). They gave each set of animals a series of cognitive tests of various difficulties. There were rewards for successful performance but they also provided a mechanism for the testee to skip any of the tests. Skipping was interpreted as showing that the testee had doubts about being able to solve that particular problem.
They studied the patterns of solution and skips for the three groups and showed that the chimps' and dolphins' patterns were similar to the human one. From this they concluded that the two animal groups had shown doubts, and hence that they were perhaps conscious.
- #181
radagast
- 483
- 1
selfAdjoint,
Before you go too much into that line of thought, perhaps we would do well to have a good working definition of 'consciousness'. I tend to think of most cordata as having consciousness, where as self-awareness (at least in my mind) is more easily defined and demonstrated, and more restricted.
Before you go too much into that line of thought, perhaps we would do well to have a good working definition of 'consciousness'. I tend to think of most cordata as having consciousness, where as self-awareness (at least in my mind) is more easily defined and demonstrated, and more restricted.
- #182
Rader
- 765
- 0
I did that. Where does the gene get its instructions from? The previous level and where does that level get it from the previous ect ect ect.
My thesis that all things contain SAS, self-aware on there own evolutionary level is, based on the postulate that a creator leaves in its creations, the laws the form and the knowledge and the creation chooses its direction.
A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof. But then there is no proofs of anything. A proposition that is maintained by argument and observation. We observe that there are levels of awarenss, evloution and consciousness. We are the most self-aware entity, we can make this observation down the scale.
- #183
Rader
- 765
- 0
Last edited:
- #184
agnostictheist
- 57
- 0
"To be honest, I'm having again I don't understand what you are saying here. What absolute proof do you think there can be? The nearest we seem to have IMO is logical or mathematical proof - truths which are neccessarily the case by given definition."
Proof: has in that what IS - existence
annoyingly is worthy unuseful!
"but these sorts of proofs cannot be directly applied to the world -"
some mathemtical proof can so, for example many systems of maths actually had there origin or represent the world, and thus direct or indirect they are still "proofs"
However having said that, one can bring up Godels incompelteness theorm which fundermentally states that something within a system can not prove or disprove certain premises in a system: and this applies to all of mathematics. (and logic, which most regard has a subset of maths)
the point is we are part of this nice system, so I have no intention of providing an example of a proof, because then the argument I present will thus need to inturn need to be "proved"
if you ask me, there is still a proof of sorts, in the form of self reffering statements, however they tend to be anayltical - and ciruclar and while again not very satisfing or useful, it is a start.
consider the phase:
all things are relevetive (and within that we have a constant)
"they are just self-consistent systems"
yes
"And claims about rality have even more hurdles to absolute knowledge."
I have a distinction between Knowledge, and truthal [true knowledge ] like I said the problem arise in comman languge.
"What would be 'evil' about giving us a level-playing field? He is not testing people's goodness or how much they would support him if they realized he was real, he is testing their gullibility, the extent to which they accept emotionally appealing ideas without question. What kind of sick test is that?"
your making the assumption, that God setted the system in such a way, when it could have arisen has a result of "sin" or people going aganist the intail intent... people are responsible for the gullibility, and in most cases can over come it, if they were not so pre-assumptious and rigid. or one track minded... why does this have to be Gods fault?
"Sure but I don't think he would be any sort of decent father at all if he disappears before the kids are born, never calls and then thrashes them (for eternity) when they don't even think he exists. And this father is supposed to be perfect goodness and love incarnate?!"
Now has he disppeared, or simply appear not to be there, has a result of one being onsided? in that I mean you might expect him to stand at the door, when in fact he could be with you in heart.
actually thrashing is a result of them knowing of God but its were he is not, becuase they have to reject the truthal way.
"The capital 'G' is a term of respect and adoration used by the followers of one god who now insist is the only one, and which it would be inappropriate for me to use."
actually its more to it, is also a cultural thing, for example a god.. can reffer by some defintions has a shining one, much like some vedic practices and even Greek, while God is very different.
Gravity elves MAY exist. Osiris MAY exist, Santa MAY exist, God MAY exist and really be waiting to reward those who make the most money or live the most fully and freely. There are as many of these untestable hypotheses as you can think of.
arguement I have seen time and time again, has for santa he DOES exist, anyone whom read history would of know who saint Nick is, and thus while this argument can for my faith or aganist, it is true that at last some of what santa stands for does exist!
Osiris cults, span probably back to older myths pre-egyptian such has in other parts of africa (using an example like this was probably a poor pick has I read much acient egyptology )
and anyone whom beleives God, in the christian type- sense would matain that God shows himself slowly and in many ways, throughout history, disargees with a affinity with nature...
the thing is while God can not be tested, in the normal sense - the concept of God would be unfair to subject to the test, unlike santa, and even osiris (you see osiris and horus make the dead, a living God often reffered to has the phaoroh) becuase God is beyond it, and even a materalist would argee that infinite knowelege [human] is not possible.
and finally simply becasue something can not be varified does not mean by defult is false, ... o how Godelian systems show up in the most unlikely of places!
Proof: has in that what IS - existence
annoyingly is worthy unuseful!
"but these sorts of proofs cannot be directly applied to the world -"
some mathemtical proof can so, for example many systems of maths actually had there origin or represent the world, and thus direct or indirect they are still "proofs"
However having said that, one can bring up Godels incompelteness theorm which fundermentally states that something within a system can not prove or disprove certain premises in a system: and this applies to all of mathematics. (and logic, which most regard has a subset of maths)
the point is we are part of this nice system, so I have no intention of providing an example of a proof, because then the argument I present will thus need to inturn need to be "proved"
if you ask me, there is still a proof of sorts, in the form of self reffering statements, however they tend to be anayltical - and ciruclar and while again not very satisfing or useful, it is a start.
consider the phase:
all things are relevetive (and within that we have a constant)
"they are just self-consistent systems"
yes
"And claims about rality have even more hurdles to absolute knowledge."
I have a distinction between Knowledge, and truthal [true knowledge ] like I said the problem arise in comman languge.
"What would be 'evil' about giving us a level-playing field? He is not testing people's goodness or how much they would support him if they realized he was real, he is testing their gullibility, the extent to which they accept emotionally appealing ideas without question. What kind of sick test is that?"
your making the assumption, that God setted the system in such a way, when it could have arisen has a result of "sin" or people going aganist the intail intent... people are responsible for the gullibility, and in most cases can over come it, if they were not so pre-assumptious and rigid. or one track minded... why does this have to be Gods fault?
"Sure but I don't think he would be any sort of decent father at all if he disappears before the kids are born, never calls and then thrashes them (for eternity) when they don't even think he exists. And this father is supposed to be perfect goodness and love incarnate?!"
Now has he disppeared, or simply appear not to be there, has a result of one being onsided? in that I mean you might expect him to stand at the door, when in fact he could be with you in heart.
actually thrashing is a result of them knowing of God but its were he is not, becuase they have to reject the truthal way.
"The capital 'G' is a term of respect and adoration used by the followers of one god who now insist is the only one, and which it would be inappropriate for me to use."
actually its more to it, is also a cultural thing, for example a god.. can reffer by some defintions has a shining one, much like some vedic practices and even Greek, while God is very different.
Gravity elves MAY exist. Osiris MAY exist, Santa MAY exist, God MAY exist and really be waiting to reward those who make the most money or live the most fully and freely. There are as many of these untestable hypotheses as you can think of.
arguement I have seen time and time again, has for santa he DOES exist, anyone whom read history would of know who saint Nick is, and thus while this argument can for my faith or aganist, it is true that at last some of what santa stands for does exist!
Osiris cults, span probably back to older myths pre-egyptian such has in other parts of africa (using an example like this was probably a poor pick has I read much acient egyptology )
and anyone whom beleives God, in the christian type- sense would matain that God shows himself slowly and in many ways, throughout history, disargees with a affinity with nature...
the thing is while God can not be tested, in the normal sense - the concept of God would be unfair to subject to the test, unlike santa, and even osiris (you see osiris and horus make the dead, a living God often reffered to has the phaoroh) becuase God is beyond it, and even a materalist would argee that infinite knowelege [human] is not possible.
and finally simply becasue something can not be varified does not mean by defult is false, ... o how Godelian systems show up in the most unlikely of places!
- #185
radagast
- 483
- 1
Well, I personally was speaking of your self-aware eletrons and subatomic particles. You have given zero reason to believe that they show any behaviour that indicates they are self-aware. Or for that much, that anything below the level of chimpanzees are self-aware. Until such time, I can't see your SAS module surviving Occam.
We have found, through trial and error, that apparently random factors and constants were often dependent on simpler physical laws.
To assume that anything unexplained is just the work of a designer, is a mental cop-out. aka god of the gaps.
Since you seem to want to rewrite dictionary meanings, without warning, then I will have to invoke the equivocation argument flaw.
This is not a generally accepted fact/truth, so invalid to use as an accepted fact within a debate. If you wish to make carte-blache statements, feel free, but please make it clear you are not debating.
A statement, not a debating point. This is what I thought you were endeavoring to show via logical debate. I can state that angels come kiss my butt every evening, but if I plan on making it part of logical discourse, I have to back it up by showing it, thru logical argumentation from generally accepted evidence.
I'm here because I like to debate, share ideas, and have my ideas challenged. Not to listen to someone on a soapbox. If you veer back into logical debate, let me know.
- #186
Sir Adam
- 3
- 0
it doesn't matter
It doesn't matter really... religion brings out the good in lots of people and gives lots of morals, without it, the world would be darkened. Also: I think that the whole issue with "God" and "how the universe began" is beyond the human mind. I don't think we can ever find THE answer... and prove it...
It doesn't matter really... religion brings out the good in lots of people and gives lots of morals, without it, the world would be darkened. Also: I think that the whole issue with "God" and "how the universe began" is beyond the human mind. I don't think we can ever find THE answer... and prove it...
Last edited:
- #187
radagast
- 483
- 1
Sir Adam,
Your position is one I have no problems with.
I take exception when someone tries to 'prove' something they accept on faith, using faulty logical arguments.
Regarding Morals and religion:
I, personally, do not believe that if religions didn't offer moral values, that no one would act morally. Most, in the west, are not strongly religious - i.e. when they do something, the religious implications are not generally considered (short of being a very major act, such as murder, adultery). A more empirical way of looking at it would be to look at the religious views of the populace corrolated with the time spent in jail. The percentage of non-theistic folk in jail is lower or equal to that of the populace in general. Obviously the moral teachings of the religious segment didn't keep them from prison.
Morals arise in all cultures, regardless of religion. Religion will always have some association with morals, simply because the spiritual is antithetic to debauched behavior, just as moral action is antithetic to debauched behavior. I this example, I'm using debauched behavior to mean behavior where one submits to their basest, most short term desires, regardless of the long term consequences. Sort of the opposite of asceticism.
Morals can be seen as the subconscious group realization that behaviors that benefit the group benefit everyone, long term, at the expense of some short term, personal gains. These type 'morals' can be seen in primate groups, canine packs, and most groups of 'social' mammals. These morals may not map, one to one, with the general human 'morals', but they do play an important function in improving the overall well being of the individuals in the group.
Your position is one I have no problems with.
I take exception when someone tries to 'prove' something they accept on faith, using faulty logical arguments.
Regarding Morals and religion:
I, personally, do not believe that if religions didn't offer moral values, that no one would act morally. Most, in the west, are not strongly religious - i.e. when they do something, the religious implications are not generally considered (short of being a very major act, such as murder, adultery). A more empirical way of looking at it would be to look at the religious views of the populace corrolated with the time spent in jail. The percentage of non-theistic folk in jail is lower or equal to that of the populace in general. Obviously the moral teachings of the religious segment didn't keep them from prison.
Morals arise in all cultures, regardless of religion. Religion will always have some association with morals, simply because the spiritual is antithetic to debauched behavior, just as moral action is antithetic to debauched behavior. I this example, I'm using debauched behavior to mean behavior where one submits to their basest, most short term desires, regardless of the long term consequences. Sort of the opposite of asceticism.
Morals can be seen as the subconscious group realization that behaviors that benefit the group benefit everyone, long term, at the expense of some short term, personal gains. These type 'morals' can be seen in primate groups, canine packs, and most groups of 'social' mammals. These morals may not map, one to one, with the general human 'morals', but they do play an important function in improving the overall well being of the individuals in the group.
- #188
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
God made the world, God formed this Grand Plan, God peopled the world with... people, God made human nature. If the system has gone so badly wrong that bilions will be damned because of the 'sins' of others, who's fault could it possibly be apart from God's. Anyway, there is no evidence that the world was ever different, that at any time Mr Yahweh made himself universally evident, across one nation, let alone the world.
No that's heat-burn. Should I conclude the existence of the God of Indigestion from this feeling or should I take an Alkaseltzer?
According to Christianity, atheists like me will go to hell. Atheists do not 'know of' God except as a sociological/psychoogical fairy tale with no more reality than Thor, Spiderman, Santa Clause or unicorns. You are claiming that people like me really do believe there is a 'God' yet reject him. This is false. Apart from anything else, what possible benefit would I get from rejecting God if he existed? And why would I have to pretend that I didn't believe he existed?
It seems to be a strategy employed by Yahwehists to semantically enforce their monotheistic revolution. I won't help them. Yahweh to me is on exactly the same mythical level as Baal and Astaroth. How is 'God' different?
Yes, and the same can be said of Yahweh. Yet theists claim a different sort of reality for their god than a cultural one.
It was a good example because it made my point well. Myths evolve from other myths. This is the case with all myths. The Osiris myth formed out of an amalgam of local mythical characters - Sokar, Khentiamentiu and probably others, as the nation became increasingly unified and cultural ideas intermingled. The myths changed during this process and evolved with time of course. It is a fact of Egyptology that there is no identified Osiris cult earlier than the 5th Dynasty. Do you think that the existence of precursors somehow means Osiris is real or makes him real?
Repeat in English please. Why does God consider ancient myth and occasional unreliable anecdote to be sufficient for supposedly sane people to believe in the existence of something they have never experienced themselves directly?
This is circular logic because you are using the presupposition of his existence and the presupposition of his (oh-so-convenient-this-will-get-us-off-the-hook) 'immunity to normal rules of evidence and logic' in order to demonstrate or defend his existence. This is known as 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'. It is also called the 'Special Pleading' fallacy. All existential claims have the same criteria of evidence needed in order to support them.
Seems like a pretty good place for a Godelian system. This is why it is so important to have actual evidence and not rely entirely on the sophistry of philosophy.
The default is not certain falseness. The default is the background noise of vanishingly small hypothetical possibilities where live the doughnut trolls, gravity elves, invisible unicorns and the like. Only actual evidence can pull a hypothesis out of that froth of virtual entities.
Last edited:
- #189
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
When the Christian Church was at the height of its power the world was darkened - that's why it was called the 'Dark Ages'.
- #190
Rader
- 765
- 0
It was not until 500 years later that the Catholic Church realized that Copernicus was right. There was persecution of knowledge because the Catholic Church had the power in the Middle Ages. Now in the New Age, science has the power. Atheism and liberalism are at there heights. Nothing has changed, just two sides of the same coin. There were great saints in those days as there is today. There was evil in the world then and there is now. Yet human consciousness has advanced to a greater self awareness of what direction to take. We have made progress.
Last edited:
- #191
Rader
- 765
- 0
Evidence that Atoms Have Bizzare Wisdom
Evidence that Atoms Have Bizzare Wisdom
The old two slit experiment has replicable evidence of bizarre particle wisdom.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A gun is able to fire one atom every hour at a plate with photographic emulsion on its surface. If an atom hits the plate it makes a spot on the film. If a solid plate is placed in front of the back emulsion film, any atom striking the front solid plate is stopped and seen no more. If the atom happens to pass through the slit on the front plate it continues to the photographic emulsion.
When only one slit is open, the gun continues to fire one atom an hour and a large number of spots accumulate on the emulsion and one can notice the expected fuzzy diffraction pattern. Now if the first slit is closed and the second slit is opened in the front solid plate, the repeated atom firings produce the same pattern but offset by the distance that separates the the two slits. The atoms are producing the diffraction pattern characteristics of waves passing through a narrow harbor opening.
Now when both slits are opened and again the gun fires one atom at a time the individual atoms no longer land randomly within the usual diffraction pattern. Instead they fall only within the specific "allowed' regions where the light bands of the interference pattern appear and never in the dark band regions. Seems reasonable doesn't it?
But wait! This cannot be. A single atom was fired at a time. There is no other atom, be it wave or particle with which to interfere and cancel each other. Yet the interference pattern occurs and the dark bands appear. A single particle can only go through one of the slits. Already noted that atoms going through the single slit falls everywhere with the diffraction pattern with none of the alternating light and dark bands that result from the interference of waves at the emulsion screen. Although both slits are open, and still firing only one atom at a time,it must travel to only one of the two slits and go through that slit. If the other slit is closed it lands anywhere within the diffraction pattern. If the other slit is open, it never lands in the dark (forbidden) regions originally seen in the interference pattern which developed when there were two slits open.
The atom is a single entity, with a fixed locality. In its passage through one slit, why should opening or closing the other slit have any effect upon its passage? How can it "know' if the second slit is open or closed? But it does know ! Somehow the atom is aware of its environment.
The identical results are obtained with firing single photons. Photon particles of light that travel at the speed of light, the now considered maximum speed attainable in our universe. Even if the photon is infinitely extended, in the time it travels from the photon gun to the open slit it cannot have 'felt' the second slit, check to see if that second slit was open or closed, communicated that information to the portion passing through the first slit and then decided where on the screen it was permitted to land and where it was forbidden. There was no time for the feeler to make the round trip.
This is bizarre.
Attribution: Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. physics department MIT
Sign up for free and check these links:
http://www.nature.com/physics/physics.taf?file=/physics/highlights/6888-1.html
http://www.nature.com/physics/physics.taf?file=/physics/highlights/6921-1.html
http://www.nature.com/physics/physics.taf?file=/physics/highlights/6855-2.html
Evidence that Atoms Have Bizzare Wisdom
The old two slit experiment has replicable evidence of bizarre particle wisdom.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A gun is able to fire one atom every hour at a plate with photographic emulsion on its surface. If an atom hits the plate it makes a spot on the film. If a solid plate is placed in front of the back emulsion film, any atom striking the front solid plate is stopped and seen no more. If the atom happens to pass through the slit on the front plate it continues to the photographic emulsion.
When only one slit is open, the gun continues to fire one atom an hour and a large number of spots accumulate on the emulsion and one can notice the expected fuzzy diffraction pattern. Now if the first slit is closed and the second slit is opened in the front solid plate, the repeated atom firings produce the same pattern but offset by the distance that separates the the two slits. The atoms are producing the diffraction pattern characteristics of waves passing through a narrow harbor opening.
Now when both slits are opened and again the gun fires one atom at a time the individual atoms no longer land randomly within the usual diffraction pattern. Instead they fall only within the specific "allowed' regions where the light bands of the interference pattern appear and never in the dark band regions. Seems reasonable doesn't it?
But wait! This cannot be. A single atom was fired at a time. There is no other atom, be it wave or particle with which to interfere and cancel each other. Yet the interference pattern occurs and the dark bands appear. A single particle can only go through one of the slits. Already noted that atoms going through the single slit falls everywhere with the diffraction pattern with none of the alternating light and dark bands that result from the interference of waves at the emulsion screen. Although both slits are open, and still firing only one atom at a time,it must travel to only one of the two slits and go through that slit. If the other slit is closed it lands anywhere within the diffraction pattern. If the other slit is open, it never lands in the dark (forbidden) regions originally seen in the interference pattern which developed when there were two slits open.
The atom is a single entity, with a fixed locality. In its passage through one slit, why should opening or closing the other slit have any effect upon its passage? How can it "know' if the second slit is open or closed? But it does know ! Somehow the atom is aware of its environment.
The identical results are obtained with firing single photons. Photon particles of light that travel at the speed of light, the now considered maximum speed attainable in our universe. Even if the photon is infinitely extended, in the time it travels from the photon gun to the open slit it cannot have 'felt' the second slit, check to see if that second slit was open or closed, communicated that information to the portion passing through the first slit and then decided where on the screen it was permitted to land and where it was forbidden. There was no time for the feeler to make the round trip.
This is bizarre.
Attribution: Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. physics department MIT
Sign up for free and check these links:
http://www.nature.com/physics/physics.taf?file=/physics/highlights/6888-1.html
http://www.nature.com/physics/physics.taf?file=/physics/highlights/6921-1.html
http://www.nature.com/physics/physics.taf?file=/physics/highlights/6855-2.html
Last edited:
- #192
agnostictheist
- 57
- 0
"God made the world, God formed this Grand Plan, God peopled the world with... people, God made human nature."
God made human nature, mind defining that. just what is human nature? that can mean many things!
God made the "world", correct but your point fails to complelety capture the point that the world we are in - is not what was "formed" by God... you also seem not to undertake the possiblity that God had a hand in shaping, but did not make it like "clockwork". thus your statement is very missleading.
if you want to use anther logical fallacy try being to specfic in ones example.
"If the system has gone so badly wrong that bilions will be damned because of the 'sins' of others, who's fault could it possibly be apart from God's."
what about the people whom helped to make it the way, going aganist Gods intent.
"Anyway, there is no evidence that the world was ever different"
Doesnt have to be, that's one very narrow minded specfic reading of christian theology mainly in taken the bible to literuly, those not exclusively... for example one can argue that the world is a process, and that Gods has an intent, that we could of chosen.
"No that's heat-burn. Should I conclude the existence of the God of Indigestion from this feeling or should I take an Alkaseltzer?"
Have I said God thus MUST exist, no.
I was just disagree with your point, that doesn't thus mean God does exist.
"According to Christianity, atheists like me will go to hell."
Then I suggest you should read christian variants before asserting such a big claim, for example there are many defintions of the term "atheist" - not just yours - which are externally used from christanity too, and so one can argue that it means one that lacks a beleif in God... what about some tribes whom never heard of God, some christians believe that because they don't know, or heard of God, they thus have not rejected, nor is fault of there own so therefore they don't go to hell... yet they can be termed "atheist" - under the one defintion I added above, they are of course more. But it indicates why you point is dangerously incomplete.
(you also seem blissfuly unaware I don't no your own stance of your atheism, so I didnt comment on it)
"Atheists do not 'know of God except as a sociological/psychoogical fairy tale with no more reality than Thor, Spiderman, Santa Clause or unicorns."
No not at all, unless you want to put words into ALL atheists mouths - Some simply believe that there is a lack of "evidence" to support the claim of Gods existence, THAT doesn't mean they nesscerly all reject Gods existence, but has your so determined to speak for the whole atheist comunity by all means do so...
"You are claiming that people like me really do believe there is a 'God' yet reject him. This is false."
That is true, it is false -- but then again I never said that people like you really do beleive, you simply putting the cart before the horse.
"Apart from anything else, what possible benefit would I get from rejecting God if he existed?"
wouldnt that vary from person to person, I am not you - I don't know what you might gain or not, and would it actually matter, unless that to reject would thus generate a gain? so what doesn't validate in invalid the arguments.
"And why would I have to pretend that I didn't believe he existed?"
you don't - never said you did.
"It seems to be a strategy employed by Yahwehists to semantically enforce their monotheistic revolution. I won't help them. Yahweh to me is on exactly the same mythical level as Baal and Astaroth. How is 'God' different?"
The claim presented by Yahweh is beyond the "natural", yet IF the exists this God, the natural spun from him thus to argue something is naturalistic Does not argue for or aganist Gods existence, but IF he does exist (which is a different question) then the natural is simply PART of the reason for if God existed HOW would he of done "this".
"Yes, and the same can be said of Yahweh. Yet theists claim a different sort of reality for their god than a cultural one."
what makes you so sure that the cultural one is nesscerly exclusive form a "theist" one.
"It was a good example because it made my point well. Myths evolve from other myths. "
Intresting claim, now back it up - the point is your provided a argument that lies within the context of the "provable" God IF there exists a transcedent one, is beyond this, that doesn't mean we can't use science - in some form, those not about God himself, but science does not say anything for or aganist God.
"This is the case with all myths. The Osiris myth formed out of an amalgam of local mythical characters"
unlikely its more possible it had its origins with some kind of "life circle" hence in early osiris myths he was concerned with a fertilty god ( christians will argue that other gods were simply constructed by man - or unless one is a fundie, or maybe not always a fundie, a fallen angel - but God was beyond all this "natural", that doesn't mean that the early monotheistic traditions are thus the true faiths, while I personally believe being a catholic that one is VERY VERY generally correct. the faith, and religion is a "process", and simply stating by natural means does not mean its thus the exclusive opposite, nor does it prove my arguement... notice why I am AGNOSTIC.
- "Sokar, Khentiamentiu and probably others, as the nation became increasingly unified and cultural ideas intermingled. The myths changed during this process and evolved with time of course. It is a fact of Egyptology that there is no identified Osiris cult earlier than the 5th Dynasty. Do you think that the existence of precursors somehow means Osiris is real or makes him real?"
Not that it really would matter anyway< i am all for evolution and don't pinn it down to thus MUST be God.
"This is circular logic because you are using the presupposition of his existence and the presupposition of his (oh-so-convenient-this-will-get-us-off-the-hook)"
I talked about circular reason already, and againt the point is I never Use the argument to thus declare Gods existence, never argee in doing so either.
assume we have the mere concept of a transdent God (for argument sake he does not exist - this is the given premise, but is not known) how do you suggest we make a fair test for it? we can't nor can one provided evidence for the non-existent (negative claims), so shall we now conlude he thus exists? - NO! should we thus conlude he doesn't NO! But that's slighty different from actually asking for EVDIDENCE for Gods non-existant, right subject matter but they are not the same thing.
The point is simple, that's the claim of God, that's different to the vast majority of other gods!, but unlike you I won't attempt to oversimplfiy things sure, other gods have had character aspects of this sort, but it does not change what is important - that the tests we provide are not suitible.
"immunity to normal rules of evidence and logic'"
evidence has many forms, it does not proof things, unless beyond a resonible doudt, but evidence has for has Yahweh is concered can always be argued - reason - with doudt (if the claim is for or aganist) and logic by itself many merely make one wrong with authority.
"in order to demonstrate or defend his existence. This is known as 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'. It is also called the 'Special Pleading' fallacy. All existential claims have the same criteria of evidence needed in order to support them."
there is also a fallcy of providing the wrong examples: in this case I didnt claim God exists, and also the fallacy that nor do I assert that logic alone can "prove" Gods existence, or logic alone should really on how one gets to God, one would look very stupid if in fact God does not act always logically, or in a manner of logic that we can not see.
"The default is not certain falseness. "
stop putting words into my mouth. how could an angostic in this case be certain?
God made human nature, mind defining that. just what is human nature? that can mean many things!
God made the "world", correct but your point fails to complelety capture the point that the world we are in - is not what was "formed" by God... you also seem not to undertake the possiblity that God had a hand in shaping, but did not make it like "clockwork". thus your statement is very missleading.
if you want to use anther logical fallacy try being to specfic in ones example.
"If the system has gone so badly wrong that bilions will be damned because of the 'sins' of others, who's fault could it possibly be apart from God's."
what about the people whom helped to make it the way, going aganist Gods intent.
"Anyway, there is no evidence that the world was ever different"
Doesnt have to be, that's one very narrow minded specfic reading of christian theology mainly in taken the bible to literuly, those not exclusively... for example one can argue that the world is a process, and that Gods has an intent, that we could of chosen.
"No that's heat-burn. Should I conclude the existence of the God of Indigestion from this feeling or should I take an Alkaseltzer?"
Have I said God thus MUST exist, no.
I was just disagree with your point, that doesn't thus mean God does exist.
"According to Christianity, atheists like me will go to hell."
Then I suggest you should read christian variants before asserting such a big claim, for example there are many defintions of the term "atheist" - not just yours - which are externally used from christanity too, and so one can argue that it means one that lacks a beleif in God... what about some tribes whom never heard of God, some christians believe that because they don't know, or heard of God, they thus have not rejected, nor is fault of there own so therefore they don't go to hell... yet they can be termed "atheist" - under the one defintion I added above, they are of course more. But it indicates why you point is dangerously incomplete.
(you also seem blissfuly unaware I don't no your own stance of your atheism, so I didnt comment on it)
"Atheists do not 'know of God except as a sociological/psychoogical fairy tale with no more reality than Thor, Spiderman, Santa Clause or unicorns."
No not at all, unless you want to put words into ALL atheists mouths - Some simply believe that there is a lack of "evidence" to support the claim of Gods existence, THAT doesn't mean they nesscerly all reject Gods existence, but has your so determined to speak for the whole atheist comunity by all means do so...
"You are claiming that people like me really do believe there is a 'God' yet reject him. This is false."
That is true, it is false -- but then again I never said that people like you really do beleive, you simply putting the cart before the horse.
"Apart from anything else, what possible benefit would I get from rejecting God if he existed?"
wouldnt that vary from person to person, I am not you - I don't know what you might gain or not, and would it actually matter, unless that to reject would thus generate a gain? so what doesn't validate in invalid the arguments.
"And why would I have to pretend that I didn't believe he existed?"
you don't - never said you did.
"It seems to be a strategy employed by Yahwehists to semantically enforce their monotheistic revolution. I won't help them. Yahweh to me is on exactly the same mythical level as Baal and Astaroth. How is 'God' different?"
The claim presented by Yahweh is beyond the "natural", yet IF the exists this God, the natural spun from him thus to argue something is naturalistic Does not argue for or aganist Gods existence, but IF he does exist (which is a different question) then the natural is simply PART of the reason for if God existed HOW would he of done "this".
"Yes, and the same can be said of Yahweh. Yet theists claim a different sort of reality for their god than a cultural one."
what makes you so sure that the cultural one is nesscerly exclusive form a "theist" one.
"It was a good example because it made my point well. Myths evolve from other myths. "
Intresting claim, now back it up - the point is your provided a argument that lies within the context of the "provable" God IF there exists a transcedent one, is beyond this, that doesn't mean we can't use science - in some form, those not about God himself, but science does not say anything for or aganist God.
"This is the case with all myths. The Osiris myth formed out of an amalgam of local mythical characters"
unlikely its more possible it had its origins with some kind of "life circle" hence in early osiris myths he was concerned with a fertilty god ( christians will argue that other gods were simply constructed by man - or unless one is a fundie, or maybe not always a fundie, a fallen angel - but God was beyond all this "natural", that doesn't mean that the early monotheistic traditions are thus the true faiths, while I personally believe being a catholic that one is VERY VERY generally correct. the faith, and religion is a "process", and simply stating by natural means does not mean its thus the exclusive opposite, nor does it prove my arguement... notice why I am AGNOSTIC.
- "Sokar, Khentiamentiu and probably others, as the nation became increasingly unified and cultural ideas intermingled. The myths changed during this process and evolved with time of course. It is a fact of Egyptology that there is no identified Osiris cult earlier than the 5th Dynasty. Do you think that the existence of precursors somehow means Osiris is real or makes him real?"
Not that it really would matter anyway< i am all for evolution and don't pinn it down to thus MUST be God.
"This is circular logic because you are using the presupposition of his existence and the presupposition of his (oh-so-convenient-this-will-get-us-off-the-hook)"
I talked about circular reason already, and againt the point is I never Use the argument to thus declare Gods existence, never argee in doing so either.
assume we have the mere concept of a transdent God (for argument sake he does not exist - this is the given premise, but is not known) how do you suggest we make a fair test for it? we can't nor can one provided evidence for the non-existent (negative claims), so shall we now conlude he thus exists? - NO! should we thus conlude he doesn't NO! But that's slighty different from actually asking for EVDIDENCE for Gods non-existant, right subject matter but they are not the same thing.
The point is simple, that's the claim of God, that's different to the vast majority of other gods!, but unlike you I won't attempt to oversimplfiy things sure, other gods have had character aspects of this sort, but it does not change what is important - that the tests we provide are not suitible.
"immunity to normal rules of evidence and logic'"
evidence has many forms, it does not proof things, unless beyond a resonible doudt, but evidence has for has Yahweh is concered can always be argued - reason - with doudt (if the claim is for or aganist) and logic by itself many merely make one wrong with authority.
"in order to demonstrate or defend his existence. This is known as 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'. It is also called the 'Special Pleading' fallacy. All existential claims have the same criteria of evidence needed in order to support them."
there is also a fallcy of providing the wrong examples: in this case I didnt claim God exists, and also the fallacy that nor do I assert that logic alone can "prove" Gods existence, or logic alone should really on how one gets to God, one would look very stupid if in fact God does not act always logically, or in a manner of logic that we can not see.
"The default is not certain falseness. "
stop putting words into my mouth. how could an angostic in this case be certain?
Last edited:
- #193
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
Yes, many things - including our selfishness, lust, hate, aggression, greed etc.
Whether it worked 'by clockwork' or not, God supposedly made the entire system, including the nature of the ones who supposedly spoiled it. If he wanted it to remain as a paradise, why did he give 'freewill' to a bunch of flawed creatures? That's just irresponsible.
Imagine a future scenario where a scientist genetically engineered a population of intelligent creatures and then disappeared, leaving only rumours that he even existed and a whole range of 'rulebooks' none of which were unambiguously authorised by him, and unsurprisingly members of the population had different ideas about whether he existed or what he was or which rules were right and there was violence and terrible battles. The responsibility for creating that situation would be with the scientist.
When, as a species, could we have chosen this? In the Garden of Eden? There is no eidence of such a time. Our ancestors back in the Pre-Cambrian era? If you believe in evolution. Or another time? Did we have freewill and face divine judgement when we were slimy amphibians crawling on the mudbanks and fighting over mates and food?
Yes, and can you justify your disagreement?
Your use of the term 'rejected' is misleadingly close to 'rebelled', which is certainly not the case. I have not 'rejected' God in any emotional sense of shunning allegiance, the only sense I could be said to have rejected him is that I have rejected the hypothesis as a credible one, based on the available evidence. I have rejected the idea that the Earth is hollow, and the existence of elves and the god Vishnu in similar ways.
Of course I am speaking primarily of atheists like me, however I was unaware the the all-loving one had a different torture in store for those who simply lack belief in God.
For clarity - here is a summary of my position: Until very recently I would have been classed as a 'weak atheist' ie I simply lacked any beliefs in gods. It is not rational to absolute exclude an untestable hypothesis, but there is no evidence to justify a belief in any gods. However, I realized that that in real terms I did have a belief that there was no God, or almost certainly no God. People need to make decisions in order to function otherwise we would be perpetually paralysed with indecision and doubt. It is rational to pick the hypothesis with the most verifiable evidence, greatest logical consistency etc. (This is the difference between rational and irrational belief). So, I do think or believe that there is no God, but a belief should never be an absolute thing, more of a working hypothesis, which is potentially subject to alteration or even complete abandonment - all of my beliefs have a little 'hole' in them. So I believe, but don't know that there is no God.
I have no idea what you are saying.
Because the cultural existence of God, ie' the idea of God can exist independently of the actual existence of a God. No one sane would deny the former, but theists are claiming much more than this for their hypothetical entity. Did he or did he not create the universe, give evolution a helping hand/create mankind 'out of clay', punsh people with floods and plagues, send his 'son' to Earth in a botched attempt to 'save' them and does he or does he not judge us in the afterlife? These are critical questions. If God is no more or less than a cultural phenomenon, then the atheists are correct not the theists. Do you think we can make things real just by believing? If that's true we can change God and change the world just by believing differently.
There is no scientific evidence for God and plenty of scientific evidence that many aspects of the theistic story, as given in the Bible etc, is simply wrong.
Sokar was a fertility god.
Many religious ideas are mutually exclusive. How do you diffentiate the very very generally correct from the incorrect if not on the basis of evidence?
Evidence is the most reliable way to discriminate between a credible possibility and a purely hypothetical one. There is no more for God than there is for the tooth fairy and that's the bottom line. Your faith is probably just evidence of the way this particular viral meme-complex has subverted your thinking processes.
I already pointed out that this is the same level of credibility as for any untestable hypothesis we can construct and there are as many as we have imagination to think of them. Do you think it is equally valid as invalid or equally probable as improbable that there are invisible whales in space or that the world was made by a malevolent computer programmer? If not, why not?
This makes no sense.
Don't beat abvout the bush. What evidence have you got?
- #194
Mumeishi
- 200
- 0
CONTINUED:
Alright, so you are saying you believe God exists, but cannot know? Well, no one can argue with that, but I am saying that your belief is unjustified by evidence or logic and that faith alone is not justification.
I'm not - you have misunderstood. These are words from my mouth.
- #195
radagast
- 483
- 1
Let see, you apply macro world rules to the quantum arena, and when you don't get the common sense, macro world response, so you label it wisdom. You know, I usually have a higher standard for wisdom than that, but that's just me.
Usually for something that is both conscious and self-aware, I would expect the ability to make more than one simple yes/no decision.
I would agree that much in the world is unknown, much acts in ways that are so far from common sense as to appear inexplicable. Attributing it to god, SAS, or gremlins, is a varient of the god of the gaps argument flaw - attribution of characteristics and causes due to lack of knowledge, with no basis for making such an attribution.
- #196
onycho
Oh but the proof lies within the obvious.
Statistically, the fact that consciousness appears to exist outside of any mathematical probability or measurement.
Experimentally replicable evidence that sub-atomic particles(of which we indvidually seem to be composed) have an innate wisdom as seen in the split screen firing of photons gives rise to indirect evidence of an unseen hand in everything.
Finally, for us mortals to visualize a singularity or timelessness wherein a Creator has existed with no past, prsent or future timefrane, no substance or attributes or needs to be created out of something on any level. But for the human mind to comprehend things outside of our own experience can lead to relating everything to what humans perceive.
Ergo, you must have verifiable proof that no Creator exists to exclude the obvious.
- #197
Rader
- 765
- 0
Radagast the macro world, is a result of the quantum arena, the rules could appear to be different because we observe on our level of SAS. Its not as if i was pulling a rabbit out of a hat, there is experimental observation of choice on the atomic level as there is on all levels. On no level of evolution is there a clear explantion of how complexity from less complexity knows how to arrnge itself. A mathematical SAS self aware structure can be accountble for this.
Usually for something that is both conscious and self-aware, I would expect the ability to make more than one simple yes/no decision.
Again i will try and explain my thesis to you, in away you might understand it. Mathematical SAS can be simple or complex it depends on the amount of axioms and the construct. Using simply the numbers 0 and 1 an infinitely long amount of commands can be built up to evolve complexity.
I would agree that much in the world is unknown, much acts in ways that are so far from common sense as to appear inexplicable. Attributing it to god, SAS, or gremlins, is a varient of the god of the gaps argument flaw - attribution of characteristics and causes due to lack of knowledge, with no basis for making such an attribution.
You are making three choices here. In order to have a SAS structure you would need a creator, so both then would not be excluded.
I would tend to argee with you if we were posting 500 years ago, but today we have direct observation of these things and experimental confirmed data that something strange is going on in the quantum world that appears to be observation and decision of atomic particles.
Last edited:
- #198
agnostictheist
- 57
- 0
"Yes, many things - including our selfishness, lust, hate, aggression, greed etc."
and why assert that these are thus due to God?.. you proced by saying:
"Whether it worked 'by clockwork' or not, God supposedly made the entire system,"
If the systems were made in clockwork fashion, then God is at fault, but if it is not, then one can't even say indirectly the faults of the system are actually a result of God, the responce to what you say next may present a philosophical reason as to why...
"including the nature of the ones who supposedly spoiled it. If he wanted it to remain as a paradise, why did he give 'freewill' to a bunch of flawed creatures? That's just irresponsible."
If God did not give us freewill, then we are simply a bunch of worthless -zombie like - machines, with great limitations, it is quite possible that we are a machines of sorts,eg our genes play are major part: but you fail to note that if we have freewill we could of been "created" perfect, and that we had the potential, without an external infulence - but not nesscerly exluding it, to chose to do Good or Evil, and even make our own defintions of this. Your comment basicly is attempting to argue against a christian theology - which is fair enough, but in doing so ignores other aspects of it.
"Imagine a future scenario where a scientist genetically engineered a population of intelligent creatures and then disappeared"
the scenario is already grossly incorrect, very few christians believe that God created a system and then just let it be, even may argument does not exclude this, and was in fact just to highlight that the "universe" NOW does not need its created after the point of creation and external to time.
Most xtains hold that God still plays a role in some form or anther in ever ourselfs, has a form of guide, or even throw science means, and finally by ways that we can not know of - after all God is supose to be transcedent so one can't measure all of Gods "acts". so the last two points can be used together, though not at the same time and in the same context and measure.
"leaving only rumours that he even existed and a whole range of 'rulebooks' none of which were unambiguously authorised by him, and unsurprisingly members of the population had different ideas"
the point about many people having different ideas is somewhat worthless, for starts YES ok its true, but with this great diversity there are SOME convergence of ideas, and simlairties! also I don't claim that I can thus understand God, may understand certian aspects in some context, but that's very different so i would expect to see this, and Finally culture would colour my veiw (yes this can swing both ways)
"about whether he existed or what he was or which rules were right and there was violence and terrible battles. The responsibility for creating that situation would be with the scientist."
or maybe the created "objects" responsiblity may dwell in the passage not the end points or the distinations themselfs.
"When, as a species, could we have chosen this?"
we didnt, it was already placed within the what was to be created, we did not have full freewill, I didnt have a choice to be born. but that doesn't mean I thus have no freewill.
"In the Garden of Eden? There is no eidence of such a time."
I don't mean to be rude, but frist I stated that not to take the bible lituerally then you ask me a question that assumes a sort of bible fundermentalist veiw, in short your applying fundermentalist reasoning or interprations to a non-fundermentalist arguement!
has for the Garden of eden,hit the books! while it is true that an eden in the biblical sense, there is no evidence - eden probably in some form of anther did exist, for example Adam was a word from pre-sumerian myths. and probably orginated from ubadian culture, and if I recall means fertile settlement on the plain - of something like that.
"Our ancestors back in the Pre-Cambrian era? If you believe in evolution. Or another time? Did we have freewill and face divine judgement when we were slimy amphibians crawling on the mudbanks and fighting over mates and food?"
Did I say that our precusors had freewill no!, rather freewill EVOLVED out of the "natural world", and has I regard natural has not nesscerly exclusive oppostite form theism, those not exclusively for I have no problem with this.
you simply pushing may argument to the extremme, if you want to believe even for that matter "WE" are some kind of pre-cambrian/cambrian worm then that's your lookout, sure your not claiming it but,it begs the question has to why bring it up. the WE is reffering to a retro-respect look at the "development" of life, and that freewill etc develop, and so simply looking AT one point of time, is a rigid look at the universe, and only a narrow minded look has to If there is a God, why not create a system that yes, we could be at the "top" but may also still develop, yet we were NOT the only "objectve", in which case all the metozia that are now extinct, we also an objective.
and before one says that this is a hallmark of a sloppy worker, it most certianly is not, a sloppy worker is one that does something and the work he does comes out badly respective of the object, Evil and what not, while ruins the work, is not at fault of a sloopy worker, has described above.
and why assert that these are thus due to God?.. you proced by saying:
"Whether it worked 'by clockwork' or not, God supposedly made the entire system,"
If the systems were made in clockwork fashion, then God is at fault, but if it is not, then one can't even say indirectly the faults of the system are actually a result of God, the responce to what you say next may present a philosophical reason as to why...
"including the nature of the ones who supposedly spoiled it. If he wanted it to remain as a paradise, why did he give 'freewill' to a bunch of flawed creatures? That's just irresponsible."
If God did not give us freewill, then we are simply a bunch of worthless -zombie like - machines, with great limitations, it is quite possible that we are a machines of sorts,eg our genes play are major part: but you fail to note that if we have freewill we could of been "created" perfect, and that we had the potential, without an external infulence - but not nesscerly exluding it, to chose to do Good or Evil, and even make our own defintions of this. Your comment basicly is attempting to argue against a christian theology - which is fair enough, but in doing so ignores other aspects of it.
"Imagine a future scenario where a scientist genetically engineered a population of intelligent creatures and then disappeared"
the scenario is already grossly incorrect, very few christians believe that God created a system and then just let it be, even may argument does not exclude this, and was in fact just to highlight that the "universe" NOW does not need its created after the point of creation and external to time.
Most xtains hold that God still plays a role in some form or anther in ever ourselfs, has a form of guide, or even throw science means, and finally by ways that we can not know of - after all God is supose to be transcedent so one can't measure all of Gods "acts". so the last two points can be used together, though not at the same time and in the same context and measure.
"leaving only rumours that he even existed and a whole range of 'rulebooks' none of which were unambiguously authorised by him, and unsurprisingly members of the population had different ideas"
the point about many people having different ideas is somewhat worthless, for starts YES ok its true, but with this great diversity there are SOME convergence of ideas, and simlairties! also I don't claim that I can thus understand God, may understand certian aspects in some context, but that's very different so i would expect to see this, and Finally culture would colour my veiw (yes this can swing both ways)
"about whether he existed or what he was or which rules were right and there was violence and terrible battles. The responsibility for creating that situation would be with the scientist."
or maybe the created "objects" responsiblity may dwell in the passage not the end points or the distinations themselfs.
"When, as a species, could we have chosen this?"
we didnt, it was already placed within the what was to be created, we did not have full freewill, I didnt have a choice to be born. but that doesn't mean I thus have no freewill.
"In the Garden of Eden? There is no eidence of such a time."
I don't mean to be rude, but frist I stated that not to take the bible lituerally then you ask me a question that assumes a sort of bible fundermentalist veiw, in short your applying fundermentalist reasoning or interprations to a non-fundermentalist arguement!
has for the Garden of eden,hit the books! while it is true that an eden in the biblical sense, there is no evidence - eden probably in some form of anther did exist, for example Adam was a word from pre-sumerian myths. and probably orginated from ubadian culture, and if I recall means fertile settlement on the plain - of something like that.
"Our ancestors back in the Pre-Cambrian era? If you believe in evolution. Or another time? Did we have freewill and face divine judgement when we were slimy amphibians crawling on the mudbanks and fighting over mates and food?"
Did I say that our precusors had freewill no!, rather freewill EVOLVED out of the "natural world", and has I regard natural has not nesscerly exclusive oppostite form theism, those not exclusively for I have no problem with this.
you simply pushing may argument to the extremme, if you want to believe even for that matter "WE" are some kind of pre-cambrian/cambrian worm then that's your lookout, sure your not claiming it but,it begs the question has to why bring it up. the WE is reffering to a retro-respect look at the "development" of life, and that freewill etc develop, and so simply looking AT one point of time, is a rigid look at the universe, and only a narrow minded look has to If there is a God, why not create a system that yes, we could be at the "top" but may also still develop, yet we were NOT the only "objectve", in which case all the metozia that are now extinct, we also an objective.
and before one says that this is a hallmark of a sloppy worker, it most certianly is not, a sloppy worker is one that does something and the work he does comes out badly respective of the object, Evil and what not, while ruins the work, is not at fault of a sloopy worker, has described above.
Last edited:
- #199
onycho
The following is a quote from an MIT physicist who is now well known about the subject at hand.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #200
radagast
- 483
- 1
This line of argumentation is no longer making progress. To simplify my position, I will only state this. You see certain observed behaviour in the quantum world and attribute this to something you consider self-aware. This is a position that, as far as I've seen and know, is only held by you. I and, AFAIK, the rest of the physicists engaged in the field have interpreted the evidence differently. This makes your claim extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.
Similar threads
Hot Threads
-
Publishing Physics Without Institution: Any Tips?
- Started by axiom
- Replies: 40
- General Discussion
-
Why do we spend so much time learning grammar in the public school system?
- Started by erobz
- Replies: 98
- General Discussion
-
-
Have you seen my glasses? [Found]
- Started by DaveC426913
- Replies: 34
- General Discussion
Recent Insights
-
Insights Quantum Entanglement is a Kinematic Fact, not a Dynamical Effect
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 7
- Quantum Physics
-
Insights What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 0
- General Math
-
Insights Relativator (Circular Slide-Rule): Simulated with Desmos - Insight
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 0
- Special and General Relativity
-
Insights Fixing Things Which Can Go Wrong With Complex Numbers
- Started by PAllen
- Replies: 7
- General Math
-
Insights Fermat's Last Theorem
- Started by fresh_42
- Replies: 78
- General Math
-
Insights Why Vector Spaces Explain The World: A Historical Perspective
- Started by fresh_42
- Replies: 0
- General Math