What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
As I said in the previous post to which you first replied, that in order to understand something, you begin with the generalities (i.e., what you do know) and work your way in (typically from the outside to the inside). So what is the difference between this and what I'm trying to tell you?

The difference is that you are comparing apples and noexistant oranges.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But it's not like somebody just came up with theory that God existed out of the blue. You can construe that as evidence too if you like.

One) Please use the term conjecture (or something similar), NOT theory. Theory has an extremely special meaning, in a scientific context - one that you haven't met so far. This will prevent avoidable confusion.

Two) If you present that as evidence, then I would counter that the evidence is much more easily explained by a large number of reasons, that do not carry the hefty baggage of trying to [then] explain a how a 'god' came about, etcetera. For example, humans are raised by parents, so are inculcated with a strong authoritarian figure from a young age. One that provides food, shelter, love, and justice. Primative man would have found it easy to accept that there was a higher authoritarian figure, replacing parents, once they became adults. This also would fit with explaining an apparently capricious world in which they lived.

What would you have me do write a book about it and present it here for everybody's review?

Nope, just present some evidence that supports the existence of (a) god(s). Then, those of us with a scientific bent will present out acceptance or rejection of said evidence, with the reasons behind the acceptance/rejection.

All this, keeping in mind that science is designed so that theories are targetted to skeptics. Theories demonstrate that they fit the evidence seen better than any other theory with the power or the evidence and rationality of the reasoning.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by radagast
One) The existence of an internal reality is irrelavent to what we are talking of, because of the next point;

two) Internal realities, as sources of scientific evidence, are outside the domain of science. They always have and always will, because they cannot be seen, check, and compared, by a dispassionate investigator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except for the fact (hence evidence) that we're speaking about the same animal here. You can apply this to your Occam's razor as well.

OK, You'll need to clarify what you mean. Perhaps there's too many pronouns or I'm just overworked, but I have no idea what you mean.

quote:Originally posted by radagast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
three) The need to look within, the idea that it should be investigated has been stated, by myself, as a noble endeavor Just Not One Science Is Suited To DO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just as with any endeavor, say like exploring the depths of the sea, you begin with the generalites (i.e., on the surface), and work your way in (hence down). Doesn't that at least suggest the beginnings of an approach? And why couldn't it be explored by means of psychology or anthropology and what not?

But to use psychology, you wouldn't be investigating the existence of god, but the effect of 'a specific experience' on the persons mental state and subsequent actions - nothing to do with the boolean nature of god's existence.

Similarly, anthropology would investigate the effect of a belief on groups of humans, not the existence, or lack thereof, of god.

quote:Originally posted by radagast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
four) External reality having a purpose is an unfounded statement, i.e. not an agreed upon fact. Without the two of us agreeing upon it, then any debating conclusions you derive from it are unsupported, because the foundation of the debate was built upon sand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet it's very clear that I couldn't exist without the confines (within context) of my physical body. If you stabbed me, and let the essence leak out (blood), then I would die. You cannot deny that there's a relationship between essence and form here. And hence another fact (evidence).

While you may consider it very clear, I would take it to be quite the opposite. You assume I cannot see something different [what I get from reading your post], yet I do. Since I do disagree, then how can this be taken as evidence (moreover, evidence of what).

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet, which is what I was "attempting" to bring up, is what if you were to compare the experiences of those who have already shared the experience, and begin by comparing notes? And, while there may be nothing conclusive to it (although I have seen studies which were), you may discover a means by which to begin the approach.

But from a scientific point of view, there is no way to assume the two experiences are the same. Similar, but no way to determine if they are the same.

E.g. You give two people that haven't tasted fruit a piece of fruit. One a lemon and one a lime. If they only taste the fruit, not see it, how can they communicate to the point of determining it was the same or a different fruit.

There is also the problem of determining if the experience has a myriad of other, more mundane, causes.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
One) Please use the term conjecture (or something similar), NOT theory. Theory has an extremely special meaning, in a scientific context - one that you haven't met so far. This will prevent avoidable confusion.

And, while I don't consider myself aligned with it so much (except for the part about God exists, as does a spiritual world), what about the theory of Creation? (or Creationism).

Two) If you present that as evidence, then I would counter that the evidence is much more easily explained by a large number of reasons, that do not carry the hefty baggage of trying to [then] explain a how a 'god' came about, etcetera. For example, humans are raised by parents, so are inculcated with a strong authoritarian figure from a young age. One that provides food, shelter, love, and justice. Primative man would have found it easy to accept that there was a higher authoritarian figure, replacing parents, once they became adults. This also would fit with explaining an apparently capricious world in which they lived.

And yet there's nothing to say that these same arguments can't be used in the existence "for" God -- i.e., in illustrating man's "inherent" need for authority, thus alluding to the ultimate authority, "God Himself." And neither do they explain the elaborate imagery and mythologies entailed (especially in well developed cultures, such as Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, etc.).

Nope, just present some evidence that supports the existence of (a) god(s). Then, those of us with a scientific bent will present out acceptance or rejection of said evidence, with the reasons behind the acceptance/rejection.

Those of us? Hmm ...

All this, keeping in mind that science is designed so that theories are targetted to skeptics. Theories demonstrate that they fit the evidence seen better than any other theory with the power or the evidence and rationality of the reasoning.

And how about myself? I doubt that you can find a much better skeptic than I. And you can ask Zero about that!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And, while I don't consider myself aligned with it so much (except for the part about God exists, as does a spiritual world), what about the theory of Creation? (or Creationism).

There is no such thing as a Theory of Creationism. That is one of the points you seem to miss. Calling something a theory doesn't make it so. "Theory' is the highest level an idea can achieve in science, and creationism doesn't come anywhere near meeting the criteria.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And, while I don't consider myself aligned with it so much (except for the part about God exists, as does a spiritual world), what about the theory of Creation? (or Creationism).

In respected scientific circles, Creationism is about as far from a theory as you can get. Only the creationists believe it's a theory, not the general scientific community.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32 quote:Originally posted by radagast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two) If you present that as evidence, then I would counter that the evidence is much more easily explained by a large number of reasons, that do not carry the hefty baggage of trying to [then] explain a how a 'god' came about, etcetera. For example, humans are raised by parents, so are inculcated with a strong authoritarian figure from a young age. One that provides food, shelter, love, and justice. Primative man would have found it easy to accept that there was a higher authoritarian figure, replacing parents, once they became adults. This also would fit with explaining an apparently capricious world in which they lived.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet there's nothing to say that these same arguments can't be used in the existence "for" God -- i.e., in illustrating man's "inherent" need for authority, thus alluding to the ultimate authority, "God Himself." And neither do they explain the elaborate imagery and mythologies entailed (especially in well developed cultures, such as Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, etc.).

But what you're running into is a difference between 'poor' evidence and 'good' evidence. If evidence supports conclusion 'a' much more poorly (or less reasonably [see Occam's razor]) than other conclusions, then it's considered poor evidence of conclusion 'a'.

Even assuming no difference in the quality of the evidence, Occams razor is still a factor. Existent and more mundane possible causes are more reasonable to claim, because they carry no overhead of explaining how they exist (since they are known to), compared with god, which requires many more details (where did god come from, how was he created, where does he exist, how do we know all these things).

To put it in more concrete terms, when you find the body of a person with a bullet hole in his head, you could suppose he was shot by a gun, or we could suppose that the bullet appeared in front of the person, already traveling at a high rate of speed, killing the poor guy. We have no more evidence of one supposition than the other, but it's more reasonable to pick the one that requires no added explanations.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And how about myself? I doubt that you can find a much better skeptic than I. And you can ask Zero about that!

The conjecture has to take on all skeptics, not just those that proposed it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
There is no such thing as a Theory of Creationism. That is one of the points you seem to miss. Calling something a theory doesn't make it so. "Theory' is the highest level an idea can achieve in science, and creationism doesn't come anywhere near meeting the criteria.

So far, all I've alluded to in my posts is the theory of evolution, that is until now. And as for the theory of Creationism, I'm not even sure what that entails, except that there are parts which take the Bible literally, that I don't agree with. I just threw this up to see if any theory of God was deemed acceptable, which apparently it's not.

 

[megashawn]

If a god theory could offer something beneficial, then I'm sure it would be taken serious.

If it solved any fundamental questions, again, a serious look would be taken.

But really, there has been no God hypothesis (i think that's the word your looking for here) that has shown to be even slightly usefull. In deed it seems that adding god to the mix rather complicates things.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
But what you're running into is a difference between 'poor' evidence and 'good' evidence. If evidence supports conclusion 'a' much more poorly (or less reasonably [see Occam's razor]) than other conclusions, then it's considered poor evidence of conclusion 'a'.

Not necessarily, because the thing you don't understand is that I'm not trying to refute the theory of evolution and replace it with the theory of God, but only augment the two. In which case evidence from either side would still be acceptable. Hence it would only be a matter of finding the "missing links."

Even assuming no difference in the quality of the evidence, Occams razor is still a factor. Existent and more mundane possible causes are more reasonable to claim, because they carry no overhead of explaining how they exist (since they are known to), compared with god, which requires many more details (where did god come from, how was he created, where does he exist, how do we know all these things).

And yet what does Occam's razor got to do with the world being flat? Which is precisely the point. Because this was the easiest thing for people to understand at that time. Are you not setting yourself up for the potential of repeating the same "classical mistake?" Indeed!

To put it in more concrete terms, when you find the body of a person with a bullet hole in his head, you could suppose he was shot by a gun, or we could suppose that the bullet appeared in front of the person, already traveling at a high rate of speed, killing the poor guy. We have no more evidence of one supposition than the other, but it's more reasonable to pick the one that requires no added explanations.

Except that we all know that a bullet is typically fired from a gun or, how about if it was thrown into a nearby campfire or something?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
If a god theory could offer something beneficial, then I'm sure it would be taken serious.

If it solved any fundamental questions, again, a serious look would be taken.

But really, there has been no God hypothesis (i think that's the word your looking for here) that has shown to be even slightly usefull. In deed it seems that adding god to the mix rather complicates things.

Well I can think of one useful thing right off hand. It might give science and religion a chance to agree with each other for once, and maybe they could do something useful together, like clean up the environment -- i.e., by means of a grass roots organization or something.

If you're interested and would like to read more, please check out my Center of Existence thread.

 

[megashawn]

heh, uhm, running out of straws?

Why in the world would religion and science need to unite to clean up the enviroment?

There are groups around here cleaning up that are multi-cultured. See, the trick, is to do this. If you believe in something unexplainable to the average joe, and for some reason feel benefited, by all means do it. Don't try to make something that isn't going to work happen.

I see what your saying, and in your eyes, I'd imagine you could view science as a tool for exploring gods creation.

Science just leaves it open for anyone, saying it is a tool for exploring everything.

I mean, its not like you go to school to become a physicist and get kicked out because you believe in god.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
heh, uhm, running out of straws?

Why in the world would religion and science need to unite to clean up the enviroment?

Well you obviously didn't bother to read the thread.

 

[Zantra]

I think the theme of this, and what I believe is that with regard to religion, People who believe in it are not willing to accept any alternative or even consider it for the most part. For example:

If the 2nd messiah came, or God appeared and started smiting people, I'll admit as an athiest I'd be dumbfounded. But after a short pause I'd say "well, time to rewrite science- and acceptance would sink in. In the face of an undeniable observation like oceans parting or Jesus strolling down the boulevard, I'd have no choice to to accept the reality of it.

Now take a religious person. Say we discovered the true origins of the universe, and ultimately realized it was natural phenomenon. Or say a new technology was developed allowing us to prove that the bible was a work of fiction created by a mortal man. Perhaps we could even one day time travel back to 33 BC and see if Christ really existed. Either way, it was proven beyond any escapable shadow of a doubt that religion was a hoax, and that there was no God. I can envision mass hysteria, mass suicides, and total denial. Religious people could not accept, as whole, the end of religion. They believe, against any form of evidence, that God does exist. If an alien race were to come down and say "hey, we seeded you millenia ago, and we're more advanced than you are, but we're not omnipotent" Religion would call them frauds.

You say to me prove that god doesn't exist and I say to you, prove to me that infinity never ends(in the physical sense, not mathmatical- been there, done that:P)

 

[heusdens]

Zantra:

Your whole point about the proof/disproof of God is in fact pointless, cause you would assume we have to wait for facts digging up, that would never occur.

The whole point about the proof/disproof of God, is that that issue resides within the mind itself, and nowhere else.

God is and never has been a "real" entity of and to the world.
God has only existed in mindly form, in the minds of people.

The philosophical and materialistic untrained mind, are likely to fall for the "easy" way religion explains things and deals with "proof". It is entirely mind based, and does not bother at any moment to take reality itself, in an objective way, into account.

The proof for any idea is however not in the mind itself, but outside of that. Just that religion will never accept that.

Any outlook in a philosophical way has to start with *some* assumption about reality. Either reality exists in a material way in primary instance, and in consciouss form only secondary, or (like theism claims) the other way around.

These are two different outlooks on reality, which oppose each other.

So what you really have to do is struggle with that philosophical question, and establish for yourself the right perception of reality.

Reading some books on that particular issue might help.

What do you think. Can your mind (continue) to exists without a body and brain? And if yours can't why would that situation be any different to any consciouss being?

Is matter objective? Or does it appear and reappear just as the mind wishes it?

If you know the right answers to such question, you already have some profound outlook on reality.

 

[Iacchus32]

Well you guys make the hill pretty steep (very little for me to hold onto), and yet I'm not prepared to go rock climbing today. I will, however, let you know once I've conquered the first plateau, and from there we can examine what has progressed so far.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by heusdens
Zantra:

Your whole point about the proof/disproof of God is in fact pointless, cause you would assume we have to wait for facts digging up, that would never occur.

The whole point about the proof/disproof of God, is that that issue resides within the mind itself, and nowhere else.

God is and never has been a "real" entity of and to the world.
God has only existed in mindly form, in the minds of people.

The philosophical and materialistic untrained mind, are likely to fall for the "easy" way religion explains things and deals with "proof". It is entirely mind based, and does not bother at any moment to take reality itself, in an objective way, into account.

The proof for any idea is however not in the mind itself, but outside of that. Just that religion will never accept that.

Any outlook in a philosophical way has to start with *some* assumption about reality. Either reality exists in a material way in primary instance, and in consciouss form only secondary, or (like theism claims) the other way around.

These are two different outlooks on reality, which oppose each other.

So what you really have to do is struggle with that philosophical question, and establish for yourself the right perception of reality.

Reading some books on that particular issue might help.

What do you think. Can your mind (continue) to exists without a body and brain? And if yours can't why would that situation be any different to any consciouss being?

Is matter objective? Or does it appear and reappear just as the mind wishes it?

If you know the right answers to such question, you already have some profound outlook on reality.

That is a very good way of looking at it. Just want to point out that my post points out the assumption that it can't be proven physically by my last line. I can no more "prove" that God exists without physical proof than someone could find the non-existent end of infinity.

For myself, I undersand your point about perception of reality, but for me, I require physical proof of something above something that as you said, exists only in the minds of those who created it.

Not quite sure I follow you on the objectivity of matter. Are you hinting that matter is only a reflection of what our minds percieve it to be? If so, I'm not sure I agree. If one person sees an object and describes it, then it could be considered possibly subjective. If multiple persons see something and agree on a description, it stands to reason that the object is as we initially percieve it. Unless you're inferring mass delusion of the way things are percived. Give me more detail one this point, not sure I'm following you correctly.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So far, all I've alluded to in my posts is the theory of evolution, that is until now. And as for the theory of Creationism, I'm not even sure what that entails, except that there are parts which take the Bible literally, that I don't agree with. I just threw this up to see if any theory of God was deemed acceptable, which apparently it's not.

There are obviously no 'theories of God'...and for you to suggest it shows your intentional lack of understanding of a rather simple word like 'theory'.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Well I can think of one useful thing right off hand. It might give science and religion a chance to agree with each other for once, and maybe they could do something useful together, like clean up the environment -- i.e., by means of a grass roots organization or something.

If you're interested and would like to read more, please check out my Center of Existence thread.

Ummm...and I guess we should declare that pi=3, because it makes the math easier? Why should science work with religion? Religion is fairy tales that play on people's phychology, while science is a rational way of looking at the world. Apples and oranges.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...and I guess we should declare that pi=3, because it makes the math easier? Why should science work with religion? Religion is fairy tales that play on people's phychology, while science is a rational way of looking at the world. Apples and oranges.

Because science is of the mind and religion is of the heart, and if maybe we could put "our hearts" where only our mind is right now, then hey, we might actually get something done. Otherwise? ... not until hell freezes over.

Or perhaps another way of putting this would be to look at the difference between men and women -- essentially a patriarchal view (science) versus a matriarchal view (religion). And here, where men tend to be more rational and scientifically minded (patriarchal), women tend to be more emotional and religiously based (matriarchal). Now has anybody ever heard the expression, "Men are slobs and women are innately clean?" Hmm ... Maybe it's time we allowed women (Mother Church/Mother Earth) the opportunity to "clean house" so to speak?

Need I say more?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Need I say more?

Yes, please. Tell me what exactly do you want from the church and from the science to do, and in what way the church can help the science (or the reverse)?

PS: in my heart there's no religion, only my wife

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
Yes, please. Tell me what exactly do you want from the church and from the science to do, and in what way the church can help the science (or the reverse)?

Yes, please follow this link to the previous thread, The Center of Existence.

PS: in my heart there's no religion, only my wife

Yep, that's close enough!

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Not necessarily, because the thing you don't understand is that I'm not trying to refute the theory of evolution and replace it with the theory of God, but only augment the two. In which case evidence from either side would still be acceptable. Hence it would only be a matter of finding the "missing links."

If you'd read what I'm saying, it has to do with 'good' evidence. I never assumed you were trying to replace any theory, other than (and this isn't a theory, only a default position) that all things arose from natural processes (vs a supreme being). If the evidence for the god theory isn't good, then the default position is kept.

And yet what does Occam's razor got to do with the world being flat? Which is precisely the point. Because this was the easiest thing for people to understand at that time. Are you not setting yourself up for the potential of repeating the same "classical mistake?" Indeed!

Occam's razor is not meant to give you the correct answer, it's not about correct, it's about the most reasonable choice 'at that point in time/or with the current evidence'. Occam's razor would have chosen the Earth being flat, because it was the most logical position given the evidence at the time. I thought you understood this.
In science we cannot know the answers we have are correct, only that we are making the most reasonable determination, at the time, with the current evidence.

Except that we all know that a bullet is typically fired from a gun or, how about if it was thrown into a nearby campfire or something?

No, you are making assumptions based on ordinary experience. We do not 'know' the bullet came from any ordinary source. We do not 'know' it didn't appear with the momentum and trajectory needed to kill our hypothetical person. These are the same assumptions some of your detractors are making, with respect to the 'god' issue. Something non-supernatural, i.e. within ordinary experience.

But you do agree that it is the most reasonable position, that it came from a gun.

p.s. a pistol or rifle cartridge (bullet) thrown into a campfire, will project the slug at high velocity (like out of a gun) - the casing explodes, with the bullet being projected at an extremely low velocity. Only the pieces of casing are projected at high velocity.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Zero
There are obviously no 'theories of God'...and for you to suggest it shows your intentional lack of understanding of a rather simple word like 'theory'.

Zero, I believe he understands this. The discussion has been to explain why it couldn't be a theory - or more accurately, why the evidence he has is insufficient to even warrant a hypothesis, much less a theory.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Because science is of the mind and religion is of the heart, and if maybe we could put "our hearts" where only our mind is right now, then hey, we might actually get something done. Otherwise? ... not until hell freezes over.

Why don't we keep our hearts where out hearts should be and out minds where their supposed to be. They're functions are different. Applying them to a different one may give us unpleasant results.

The same as trying to get science to do the function of religion.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
If you'd read what I'm saying, it has to do with 'good' evidence. I never assumed you were trying to replace any theory, other than (and this isn't a theory, only a default position) that all things arose from natural processes (vs a supreme being). If the evidence for the god theory isn't good, then the default position is kept.

And the question is, by whom? Don't you think that's just the least bit reckless, especially when there's such a vast majority that claim otherwise? If it was anything other than the notion of God, then I would probably say no big deal. Or, am I wrong in saying you just claimed that the default position suggests God doesn't exit?

Occam's razor is not meant to give you the correct answer, it's not about correct, it's about the most reasonable choice 'at that point in time/or with the current evidence'. Occam's razor would have chosen the Earth being flat, because it was the most logical position given the evidence at the time. I thought you understood this.
In science we cannot know the answers we have are correct, only that we are making the most reasonable determination, at the time, with the current evidence.

So in that respect Occam's razor doesn't necessarily mean anything, least of all with respect to God. Hmm ... I wonder what Christopher Columbus would have had to say about such a thing? Of course I think we already know the answer to that.

And just because water rolls down hill (path of least resistance), doesn't mean we can't construct terraces or build a resevoir by which to contain it. Otherwise nothing is "developed," and we're just maintaining the "status quo."

Originally posted by radagast
Why don't we keep our hearts where out hearts should be and out minds where their supposed to be. They're functions are different. Applying them to a different one may give us unpleasant results.

The same as trying to get science to do the function of religion.

But can't we at least recognize that they're both functions of the "same body?" Which can't function -- let alone be whole -- without either one? And what are you suggesting that men should be kept separate from women? ... In which case I would agree, at least for a time.

 

[Royce]

Mind if I step in and ask a few questions?
What constitutes "Good Evidence"? Does the thinking and experience of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for 10,000 years or so not count as evidence? Is it just the speculations of a select few for a few hundred years all that can count as evidence and only because it is "science"?

Is the default position any more rational that the God position? After all, while the God postion may contain a lot of extra baggage such as where did God come from, does not the default position contain the same baggage? Where did we, the earth, the universe come from? How much time and effort has been spent; how many books have been written to attempt explain just that?

We can not separate the mind and the heart, the objective from the subjective, reason from emotion. As much as we would like to try to it is impossible. We are not built that way. We ask and explore and think because we care. It is not pure reason. If we were not involved, did not care, did not need to know we would still been in the trees eating fruit or in the meadows eating grass.

 

[Zero]

You folks seem confused again...the brain does the THINKING, the heart PUMPS BLOOD.


I hope that clears things up?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
inpossibility.
The argument is however that the eternal infinite material world itself (which is the highest or most broad form of being, since there is nothing outside or beyond it) can not exist in consciouss or subjective form.
To be consciousness, means to be consciousness of something. but by definition there is not something beyond or outside the eternal infinite material world itself.

I find this post to be based on nothing more than semantics and a load of assumptions, some of which have no more a scientific basis than God.

Of course you cannot be conscious of yourself if you are all that exists because the concept of "yourself" is meaningless. That's what I meant when I said semantics above. But there is no basis for saying that you cannot be conscious of whatever it is that exists. You just can't call it "yourself". And to make any claims that one cannot be conscious of anything unless it is distinct from oneself would be making the assumption that things are somehow objectively distinct to begin with! Does sciences say this? I don't think so. If you think about it, distinction is all in the mind.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by radagast
If you'd read what I'm saying, it has to do with 'good' evidence. I never assumed you were trying to replace any theory, other than (and this isn't a theory, only a default position) that all things arose from natural processes (vs a supreme being). If the evidence for the god theory isn't good, then the default position is kept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the question is, by whom? Don't you think that's just the least bit reckless, especially when there's such a vast majority that claim otherwise? If it was anything other than the notion of God, then I would probably say no big deal. Or, am I wrong in saying you just claimed that the default position suggests God doesn't exit?

Appeal to the popular - an argument flaw. Just because the majority believe something doesn't make it true.

If you mean the judgement of good evidence, this has to pass the reasonable person test. Given a good understanding of the type of evidence, all reasonable people should be able to agree that the evidence is good at supporting the argument given for it, and not much more supportive (or more reasonable) of a contradictory argument.

This has not been, in any form or fashion, been presented for your case.

So in that respect Occam's razor doesn't necessarily mean anything, least of all with respect to God. Hmm ... I wonder what Christopher Columbus would have had to say about such a thing? Of course I think we already know the answer to that.

Certainly it does, have you not been listening? Think about it, I could alway come up with any competeing conjecture, to an existing theory, which fits the evidence, but expands the number of requirements and reasons, unboundedly. So instead of heat traveling from hot objects to cool objects because of radiative dissapation and molecular collision, I could say that trillions of microscopic, invisible fairies carried the heat from hot to cold.

Occam's razor holds because the converse is absurd. It's not a simple concept, but if you try and think it through honestly, it becomes apparent.


First, Columbus, as most intellectuals of the day, knew the world had to be round - the evidence supported it. It was the common people that didn't believe it. Columbus was in extreme error in the computation of the worlds size, and was only saved by the fact that the america's were here, otherwise he'd have died of thirst and hunger.

Just because something is more reasonable to believe, doesn't imply it's true. Nor, does it imply we don't look elsewhere to ensure what we accept is true, is. Each time we get new evidence, the whole needs to be re-evaluated by Occam.

And just because water rolls down hill (path of least resistance), doesn't mean we can't construct terraces or build a resevoir by which to contain it. Otherwise nothing is "developed," and we're just maintaining the "status quo."

This is as good an example of an non-sequituir as I've seen.

But can't we at least recognize that they're both functions of the "same body?" Which can't function -- let alone be whole -- without either one? And what are you suggesting that men should be kept separate from women? ... In which case I would agree, at least for a time.

No problem with them functioning in the 'same house'. They function that way in my 'house' just fine, as well as a number of theist I know and respect.

What you have asked, though, is that the 'mind' (science) start pumping blood for the heart ('religion'). That has been, is, and will remain the argument in this thread, with you.

The premise that they cannot be alone is a strongly contestable statement. Many people in the forum operate without any religious support/practice/faith.

Men and Women - Aren't we really stretching the analogy way, way past the breaking point here?

I'm beginning to think that any and all debates with you, as cordial as you've been, are fruitless. You seem to ignore/avoid/misinterpret every strong point I've made, ignore the argument flaws detected, dismiss one of the more basic principles of reason, not to mention that our differences seem completely irreconcilable. At the present rate, I will cease any debate with you on any point - no insult intended - simply because they are doomed to a deadlock.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Royce
Mind if I step in and ask a few questions?
What constitutes "Good Evidence"? Does the thinking and experience of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people for 10,000 years or so not count as evidence? Is it just the speculations of a select few for a few hundred years all that can count as evidence and only because it is "science"?

Good evidence = see previous post. Good evidence has to be extremely hard to contest (as evidence of a given point or position). Most of the christians I know would have a hard time using the evidence mentioned here as 'scientific' evidence.

Evidence is irrelevant of popularity - hence the reason for the Argumentum ad populum argument flaw. Many millions of small children believe that the universe consists of the inside of their house...

Is the default position any more rational that the God position? After all, while the God postion may contain a lot of extra baggage such as where did God come from, does not the default position contain the same baggage? Where did we, the earth, the universe come from? How much time and effort has been spent; how many books have been written to attempt explain just that?

The problem with the god baggage, vs the physical causes baggage is that we have demonstrated that physical cause and effect happens, no such thing has been demonstrated about god, not even his existence.

Don't get me wrong, have faith in any diety you wish. But to try and apply science to that problem would only pervert science into something which it was not.

Trying to use science to prove god is as absurd as using the bible to construct a Boeing 747. Hammers and screwdrivers - they do different things, when they are misused, the results are rarely pretty.

Assuming you're a believing christian, the last time people tried to prove heaven/god existed, it ended badly. (Babylon)

We can not separate the mind and the heart, the objective from the subjective, reason from emotion. As much as we would like to try to it is impossible. We are not built that way. We ask and explore and think because we care. It is not pure reason. If we were not involved, did not care, did not need to know we would still been in the trees eating fruit or in the meadows eating grass.

The point of subject/objective concerns the lack of referents. Since there are no referents to completely subjective experience, comparing them is difficult, examining if they are the same is virtually impossible. See lemon/lime test, previous post - explain your solution.

 

[Royce]

Glenn, I do agree with you that God or his existence can not be proven by scientific evidence. God, religion, spiritualism and/or theism is not and can not be addressed by science at all. Nor can or should the opposite be true. However, Science is not the only tool that we have have to gain knowledge.

It is indeed apples and oranges but when we are looking exclusively at the apples with the proper applescope it does not mean that oranges do not exist. The see the organges we have to use an orange scope. I do not mean to be frivalous or make light of the topic but the point is valid IMO.

We all agree that sdcience cannot be used to prove God exists or created the universe. Okay, why do we then continue to refer to scientific methods and evidence when discussing God etc?

By the same token science can not be used to prove that God does not exist or that God did not create the universe. So why do you and others try? Please understand that I am not necessary speaking of you personally but on non-theist and anti-theist. We speak or write of God and creation and far to often a response has been that science have PROVED the BB and evolution etc. We, theist, are then compelled to address scientific issues in theist terms which as you correctly point out is comparing apples and oranges.

That response seems to work for you in discounting all that we may say but when we point this out then we are evading the issue. It is not, my friend, always a two way street.

 

[radagast]

Royce,
With respect to the last post. We are in complete and utter agreement. Say, isn't that listed as one of the signs of the apocolypse?

In this thread Iacchus has been arguing that science should investigate the existence of god, almost all my posts on this thread since, have been directed at explaining why science cannot be used to do that.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Appeal to the popular - an argument flaw. Just because the majority believe something doesn't make it true.

Except you're the one who said that the whole thing was outside of science's domain, and that there was no way science could grapple with it one way or the other. And yet here you are now suggesting that science -- i.e., via Occam's razor -- takes (and perhaps relys upon) the position that God doesn't exist. So which is it going to be? Sounds like a great way to back up the "staus quo" to me.

If you mean the judgement of good evidence, this has to pass the reasonable person test. Given a good understanding of the type of evidence, all reasonable people should be able to agree that the evidence is good at supporting the argument given for it, and not much more supportive (or more reasonable) of a contradictory argument.

And how do we establish who is reasonable? Someone who is in accord with those who proclaim what reasonable should be? That's definitely one way!

This has not been, in any form or fashion, been presented for your case.

Once again to whom? I think Royce's (first) reply above was one of the most reasonable replies I've heard so far. Hmm ... must be because we have a similar viewpoint and respect each others views. But then again that would imply bias now wouldn't? And yet it obviously doesn't agree with your sense of what "reasonable" is now does it?

Certainly it does, have you not been listening? Think about it, I could alway come up with any competeing conjecture, to an existing theory, which fits the evidence, but expands the number of requirements and reasons, unboundedly. So instead of heat traveling from hot objects to cool objects because of radiative dissapation and molecular collision, I could say that trillions of microscopic, invisible fairies carried the heat from hot to cold.

But then again, what if like Christopher Columbus, we "knew" better?

Occam's razor holds because the converse is absurd. It's not a simple concept, but if you try and think it through honestly, it becomes apparent.

Absurd? ... Says who?

First, Columbus, as most intellectuals of the day, knew the world had to be round - the evidence supported it. It was the common people that didn't believe it. Columbus was in extreme error in the computation of the worlds size, and was only saved by the fact that the america's were here, otherwise he'd have died of thirst and hunger.

It's within the interest of the powers that be, to maintain the "status quo."

Just because something is more reasonable to believe, doesn't imply it's true. Nor, does it imply we don't look elsewhere to ensure what we accept is true, is. Each time we get new evidence, the whole needs to be re-evaluated by Occam.

Or, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to reevaluate some of the old evidence as well? Especially in light of our abilities to be more comprehensive in our testing.

This is as good an example of an non-sequituir as I've seen.

All I can say is I do my best.

No problem with them functioning in the 'same house'. They function that way in my 'house' just fine, as well as a number of theist I know and respect.

You can't have thinking without feelings, and vice versa. Indeed the two augment each other.

What you have asked, though, is that the 'mind' (science) start pumping blood for the heart ('religion'). That has been, is, and will remain the argument in this thread, with you.

No, all I've asked is that we attempt to view the whole thing in an "integrated sense."

The premise that they cannot be alone is a strongly contestable statement. Many people in the forum operate without any religious support/practice/faith.

And yet, to the degree that we deny the other "significant side" to ourselves, we become neurotic.

Men and Women - Aren't we really stretching the analogy way, way past the breaking point here?

Actually, when you get right down to it, this is a male versus female thing. So tell me, why is it so hard for men to express their emotions? Or, why is that women can't stand it when men get too over-analytical?

I'm beginning to think that any and all debates with you, as cordial as you've been, are fruitless. You seem to ignore/avoid/misinterpret every strong point I've made, ignore the argument flaws detected, dismiss one of the more basic principles of reason, not to mention that our differences seem completely irreconcilable. At the present rate, I will cease any debate with you on any point - no insult intended - simply because they are doomed to a deadlock.

Has anybody ever accused you of being a knit-pick?

 

[radagast]

Iacchuss,
I've answered all these before, just in a different form. There is only a few different ways to say the same thing. If you noticed, Royce misunderstood the intent of what was said - he, as do I, and virtually everyone with a strong scientific background understand that science is ill-equipped to delve into the metaphysical.

I have, time after time, tried to show why the evidence you are presenting wouldn't qualify as evidence of what you want it to show. I cannot know, given my present knowledge, if you just have such a primative grasp of science, or you are just locked into the tunnel vision of proving what you believe to be true, but your view of science is one bordering on 'people with opinions' and nothing more. Since that is apparently what you believe, no manner of argumentation is going to convince you that you are incorrect on the point of using science to investigate the existence (or lack thereof) of god.

Debating further you is pointless. I will do my best to avoid any debates with you, on any subject, in the future. Though I am pretty good at controlling sudden impulses, it's possible I'll respond to something in the future. With luck, this will be held to a minimum.

Has anybody ever accused you of being a knit-pick?

More times than I can count. If I've got one weakness, it's a penchant for accuracy.

p.s. Occams razor though used by science, is an tool of reasoning, not specific to science. It would apply to fictitious, abstract arguments as easily as debates concerning the concrete and the real.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Iacchuss,
I've answered all these before, just in a different form. There is only a few different ways to say the same thing. If you noticed, Royce misunderstood the intent of what was said - he, as do I, and virtually everyone with a strong scientific background understand that science is ill-equipped to delve into the metaphysical.

But what does metaphysical mean, if not the precursor to that which is physical?

Well actually I thought I understood what Mr. Boyce was saying initially, but then again maybe you and he are in cahoots?

I have, time after time, tried to show why the evidence you are presenting wouldn't qualify as evidence of what you want it to show. I cannot know, given my present knowledge, if you just have such a primative grasp of science, or you are just locked into the tunnel vision of proving what you believe to be true, but your view of science is one bordering on 'people with opinions' and nothing more. Since that is apparently what you believe, no manner of argumentation is going to convince you that you are incorrect on the point of using science to investigate the existence (or lack thereof) of god.

Yes, when you get right down to it, science is only a matter of opinion. Consider the theory of evolution for example. It's still yet to be proven by the way.

Given this, why is it that we don't "seem" to have the ability to prove whether something is true one way or the other? We only "seem" to have the ability to measure whether one thing is more "plausible" than another. This would be "my opinion" of course.

Debating further you is pointless. I will do my best to avoid any debates with you, on any subject, in the future. Though I am pretty good at controlling sudden impulses, it's possible I'll respond to something in the future. With luck, this will be held to a minimum.

Hmm ... Now where have I heard this before? Was it something Mr. Royce brought up, or something Mr. Boyce brought up?

More times than I can count. If I've got one weakness, it's a penchant for accuracy.

And I suppose people have told you how "annoying" that can be as well?

p.s. Occams razor though used by science, but is an tool of reasoning, not specific to science. It would apply to fictitious, abstract arguments as easily as debates concerning the concrete and the real.

And yet it cannot ultimately be used for determining "the truth." Which you see, is what I'm trying to get at here.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by radagast Good evidence = see previous post. Good evidence has to be extremely hard to contest (as evidence of a given point or position). Most of the christians I know would have a hard time using the evidence mentioned here as 'scientific' evidence. . . . The problem with the god baggage, vs the physical causes baggage is that we have demonstrated that physical cause and effect happens, no such thing has been demonstrated about god, not even his existence.

Radagast, I hope you don’t mind that I’ve chosen your post to argue my points on this subject. Also, to fellow posters familiar with my stance, here it comes again!

Radagast, you assume science is the end-all of discovery. Your posts reveal that the standard by which you judge proof and evidence is empiricism. But empircism, by definition, is dependent on sense data. Are you certain the senses are the only avenue for acquiring information?

And yes, empiricism/science has demonstrated physical cause and effect happens. What does that prove? It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that science reveals physical cause and effect. It also proves it reveals nothing more. Now, let’s be utterly, objectively, coldly logical . . . if science shows only physical cause and effect, should we conclude reality is only physical cause and effect? Or can we only objectively, coldly-logically conclude science is limited in what it reveals?

Originally posted by radagast Trying to use science to prove god is as absurd as using the bible to construct a Boeing 747. Hammers and screwdrivers - they do different things, when they are misused, the results are rarely pretty. Assuming you're a believing christian, the last time people tried to prove heaven/god existed, it ended badly. (Babylon)

Agreed

Originally posted by radagast The point of subject/objective concerns the lack of referents. Since there are no referents to completely subjective experience, comparing them is difficult, examining if they are the same is virtually impossible. See lemon/lime test, previous post - explain your solution.

Experience . . . that has for nearly two centuries been the standard of verifying claims. Experience and know -- I believe that with every inch of my being.

But what is the full range of experience? If you are a scientism devotee, you say sense experience. The problem with that bring us to my second big complaint with empircally-oriented perspectives.

Virtually unknown to all the science fantatics is the huge area of human potential out of which “enlightenment” has risen. The materialists are geniuses on everything physical, but ask them to explain the 3000 year history of the enlightenment phenomenon and all you get is a big . . . “huh?” And will they investigate and understand before spouting radical materialist philosophy? Well, I have yet to see it.

So here we all are, philosophizing without a crucial piece of human potential included in the discussion . . . and for no other reason than people are already determined to believe what they want to believe, and perfectly willing to ignore or disregard relevant additional information to do so.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Radagast, I hope you don’t mind that I’ve chosen your post to argue my points on this subject. Also, to fellow posters familiar with my stance, here it comes again!

Radagast, you assume science is the end-all of discovery. Your posts reveal that the standard by which you judge proof and evidence is empiricism. But empircism, by definition, is dependent on sense data. Are you certain the senses are the only avenue for acquiring information?

Les,
I realize you cannot read all the posts on the site, so I understand that you may have gotten a skewed view, especially from this thread.

1) I'm a Zen Buddhist, actually one working towards the priesthood, so to say that science is the end all and be all of discovery is hardly my view.

2) If you are basing your judgement on this thread, please listen to how it started and exactly what I'm argueing. Over half a dozen times, in this thread alone, I've stated that science is not the only avenue to knowledge. This thread - specifically with respect to Iacchuss, was to say that Science was absolutely NOT the method that made sense to try and determine if god existed. So far, only Iacchuss has argued the other side of that coin. Given his knowledge of science is so limited, I've had to withdraw from debating with him.

3) The arguments I've made concerning science are fairly common knowledge to most in science and certainly to anyone with that's studied the philosophy of science. It is one also held by a number of scientists who hold strong religious views, and is orthogonal to the idea of materialism.

4) I keep a clear idea, or division, for myself concerning my criteria for objective truth and facts, and for subjective truth and facts. Objective truth and facts require a more rigorous set of criteria, for me, than for most others. But that's just me.

And yes, empiricism/science has demonstrated physical cause and effect happens. What does that prove? It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that science reveals physical cause and effect. It also proves it reveals nothing more. Now, let’s be utterly, objectively, coldly logical . . . if science shows only physical cause and effect, should we conclude reality is only physical cause and effect? Or can we only objectively, coldly-logically conclude science is limited in what it reveals?

Obviously science is limited in what it reveals. But I've stated this, in other terms, several times in this thread alone. The above paragraph is something I would agree with.

Experience . . . that has for nearly two centuries been the standard of verifying claims. Experience and know -- I believe that with every inch of my being.

I spent three years in a fundamentalist church, experienced what many call 'being saved'. That this matches your experience, neither of us can say. The whole idea behind saying that science cannot investigate the existence/non-existence of god circles around this one point - the inability to objectively judge another's subjective experience. I'm getting off my point, please excuse me. In my further religious quests I realized the experience I had had, came in different guises, depending on the religion in question, but was the same experience, interpreted in different ways. I much prefer the Buddhist interpretation of that experience.

I can know Muslims who accept what they believe, from the experiences they've had, to the core of their being. I can find Christians that believe the same about their beliefs. My office is about one third Hindu. A large number are devout and highly spiritual and would say the same about their beliefs. Though the idea of faith and belief is quite different in Buddhism, needless to say I can find number of Buddhists with a similar depth of conviction about their experiences.
Perhaps you can see a pattern in where I'm going with this...

<argument verging on ad-hominem deleted>

If you wish to judge me, please read more than one or two of my posts.

 

[Adam]

What would it take? Brainwashing.

Seriously, so many other things are far more likely. If someone popped up and demonstrated remarkable powers, the far more likely option is a technologically-advanced alien or such. Even more likely is hallucination. I can't think of anything that would do it, really, short of brainwashing.

 

[Iacchus32]

And yet the idea of God has been conveyed throughout the millennia, and quite possibly "meant" to be understood.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet the idea of God has been conveyed throughout the millennia, and quite possibly "meant" to be understood.

Rot and piffle. The idea of gods has been around for millennia. The word "god" refers not to a single being but to a class or type of being. It's like people, dogs, fish, et cetera. "Baal" is to "god" as "Adam" is to "person". However, the christian churches came up with a rather clever policy of referring to their own god, named "Yahweh" or some such, as simply "God", changing the meaning of the word to imply that there is only one such being.

As for human belief in the supernatural in general, what has persisted for millennia is not any particular belief in one thing, but ignorance. For the majority of our history we have been ignorant of why lightning occurs, for example, and thus made up silly fairy tales of spirits and gods and such to explain it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Virtually unknown to all the science fantatics is the huge area of human potential out of which “enlightenment” has risen. The materialists are geniuses on everything physical, but ask them to explain the 3000 year history of the enlightenment phenomenon and all you get is a big . . . “huh?” And will they investigate and understand before spouting radical materialist philosophy? Well, I have yet to see it.

So here we all are, philosophizing without a crucial piece of human potential included in the discussion . . . and for no other reason than people are already determined to believe what they want to believe, and perfectly willing to ignore or disregard relevant additional information to do so.

And yes, what radagast fails to realize is that this is a philosophy forum, and is somewhat open ended in terms of what you can discuss. Neither does he wish to realize that it's these very same people who I am addressing in these posts. So rather than focus on me -- if, he wants to start a campaign, I would suggest he begin focusing on them as well. Or, maybe there's a particular reason why he wishes to single me out?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Adam
Rot and piffle. The idea of gods has been around for millennia. The word "god" refers not to a single being but to a class or type of being. It's like people, dogs, fish, et cetera. "Baal" is to "god" as "Adam" is to "person". However, the christian churches came up with a rather clever policy of referring to their own god, named "Yahweh" or some such, as simply "God", changing the meaning of the word to imply that there is only one such being.

There are just as many Gods as there are people on this planet. And yet, only one sun in the sky? -- which, for all intents and purposes represents God. Think about it, this is where the idea of monotheism came from, the early Egyptians, and is no doubt (I could be mistaken here) tied to their sun-god "Ra."

As for human belief in the supernatural in general, what has persisted for millennia is not any particular belief in one thing, but ignorance. For the majority of our history we have been ignorant of why lightning occurs, for example, and thus made up silly fairy tales of spirits and gods and such to explain it.

Ignorance? And yet the last thing you would want to do is get struck by lightning now wouldn't it? That would be pure ignorance indeed. Whereas if you were close to the "root of the matter," such as the ancients no doubt were, you might come about with a different perspective.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
There are just as many Gods as there are people on this planet. And yet, only one sun in the sky? -- which, for all intents and purposes represents God. Think about it, this is where the idea of monotheism came from, the early Egyptians, and is no doubt (I could be mistaken here) tied to their sun-god "Ra."

The oldest known religious icon is about 25,000 years old, European, a small ivory carving of a pregnant-looking female. That may have been part of a pantheon or may have been from a monotheistic culture; it's uncertain.

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Ignorance? And yet the last thing you would want to do is get struck by lightning now wouldn't it? That would be pure ignorance indeed. Whereas if you were close to the "root of the matter," such as the ancients no doubt were, you might come about with a different perspective.

It would be unlucky to be struck by lightning, but such an event would have nothing at all to do with knowledge or igorance. Someone who knows what lightning is may be struck. Again, ages ago belief that such things were caused by beings was based on ignorance.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yes, what radagast fails to realize is that this is a philosophy forum, and is somewhat open ended in terms of what you can discuss. Neither does he wish to realize that it's these very same people who I am addressing in these posts. So rather than focus on me -- if, he wants to start a campaign, I would suggest he begin focusing on them as well. Or, maybe there's a particular reason why he wishes to single me out?

Ummm...we prefer our philosophy to be coherent? And you have been dipping into the shrooms again, haven't you?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Adam
It would be unlucky to be struck by lightning, but such an event would have nothing at all to do with knowledge or igorance. Someone who knows what lightning is may be struck. Again, ages ago belief that such things were caused by beings was based on ignorance.

And yet I'm not going to stand out in the middle of a field during the middle of a thunder storm and wait for it to happen. That "would" be dumb. Also, the lives of the gods were "synchronized" through such events, as storms, wars, faminines and what not. So if in fact there were a "godly connection" to be made, this is how it would mostly likely come about. While something similar is suggested by what I posted in the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=54055 ...

Originally posted by Iaccus32
And yet as I understand, the angels in heaven, as intermediaries between heaven and earth, are already endowed with this capacity ... as "mini gods" so to speak.

As a matter-of-fact, if understood correctly, it would begin to explain the nature gods and godessess in general, like throughout ancient Greece and what not. Whereby the gods or godesses we choose -- or, do they choose us? -- depends upon the "afiliations" we establish in ourselves.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...we prefer our philosophy to be coherent? And you have been dipping into the shrooms again, haven't you?

You're right, it's important to have a sense of humor about it now isn't it?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
You're right, it's important to have a sense of humor about it now isn't it?

What the heck, it breaks the monotony, if nothing else!