Do you believe in God?

[CraftyLandShark]

You can take it in two directions. It either says that he created himself, or that he was created from nothing. Since there was an extended conversation about not only if God existed, but if he did how he came to be, that argument can help a great deal.

And again, it would help a great deal only if one takes the existence of God as a given. As you point out yourself, that's a massive leap that neither science or philosophy can justify, so I'm not entirely sure what your goal is here. Those who take that leap don't really care whether logic is on their side, so there's nothing of any value added to the conversation.

You can say, rather correctly I might add, that I haven't really proved anything. If God doesn't exist, or if he doesn't have the attributes that are classically applied to him then my argument is out of luck. I have brought us no closer to proving the existence of god, and if you look at this thread as being used solely to this end then I haven't really added anything.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Though this thread certainly isn't just concerned with proving the existence of God, as I've said before, the dialectic value of this discussion lies in the conflict between the opposing views, and the diametrically opposed paradigms of thought they represent.

However if you look at the entire concept of what God could be and how such a being could operate assuming his existence, then the argument is a nice step in the right direction. I'm sorry that you don't find it very satisfying, but you are not alone. When talking about things of this nature, it is immensely hard to walk away with anything of absolute substance.

Then why talk about it? The logical basis of the claim is dubious at best, and in the face of issues that have real impact on society it seems very artificially narrow to examine it so needlessly. If you enjoy it, that's great, but expect the dissatisfaction you describe.

One thought that might be interesting using this train of thought was presented by St. Augustine. He views God ... [as though] it wouldn't be possible to define or observe him on terms of the universe.

As I'm sure you can imagine not many people enjoy hearing this opinion, let alone support it. But it opens up a nice window of discussion as to if God exists, then where does such a thing reside and what qualities does such a being have.

Such a discussion is essentially pointless. Any conclusions one draws would be just as unfalsifiable as claims of the existence of a scripturally-described God and would be of no use to anyone not already predisposed to believe in such an entity.

I suppose I sound pretty utilitarian, and perhaps that's good to some degree, but I honestly think this is an issue of such import to the future of society that it ought to be scrutinized in a manner that attempts to contribute something that you describe as "of absolute substance".

 

[WVUscion]

And again, it would help a great deal only if one takes the existence of God as a given. As you point out yourself, that's a massive leap that neither science or philosophy can justify, so I'm not entirely sure what your goal is here. Those who take that leap don't really care whether logic is on their side, so there's nothing of any value added to the conversation.



Couldn't have said it better myself.

Though this thread certainly isn't just concerned with proving the existence of God, as I've said before, the dialectic value of this discussion lies in the conflict between the opposing views, and the diametrically opposed paradigms of thought they represent.



Then why talk about it? The logical basis of the claim is dubious at best, and in the face of issues that have real impact on society it seems very artificially narrow to examine it so needlessly. If you enjoy it, that's great, but expect the dissatisfaction you describe.



Such a discussion is essentially pointless. Any conclusions one draws would be just as unfalsifiable as claims of the existence of a scripturally-described God and would be of no use to anyone not already predisposed to believe in such an entity.

I suppose I sound pretty utilitarian, and perhaps that's good to some degree, but I honestly think this is an issue of such import to the future of society that it ought to be scrutinized in a manner that attempts to contribute something that you describe as "of absolute substance".

I must be so immensely confused then. If you come into the thread looking for a concrete proof of God then you are out of luck, there is none and there never will be one. If you enter this thread looking for a concrete refutation of God then you are also out of luck. There isn't one and there never will be.

If these are the only things that are viable discussion then the thread should be locked, because all opinions regarding the matter can be deduced to "we don't know since we can't prove it".

I was thinking that this thread is and has been used to further discussion on such questions as:

If there is a God what is he like?
If there isn't a God how does the world work?
If God exists how does he effect my life?
If God doesn't exist, what does that mean about the afterlife?

Questions one and two assume God exists. Question three and four assume that he doesn't. Would you say these questions aren't valid for discussion since we are silly for assuming something we can't prove?

If so then I have greatly misunderstood the purpose of this thread, and there is absolutely no way that I could possibly further it.

 

[niky]

I'm sorry but none of that is true. The evidence is NOT D. this is how the argument would follow if the evidence was D.

1.) If God exists, then he is all powerful
2.) If he is all powerful, then he has the power to do all things possible
3.) If he has the power to do all things possible, then he has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.
4.) He DOES have the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.
_______________________

5.) God has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.

This follows the illogical pattern:

A to B
B to C
C to D
D
_________
D

Just in case you don't agree with my originial pattern, assign the letters to the claims.

If God exists is A

He is all powerful is B

He has the power to do all things possible is C

Leptons are a possible thing is D

Claim four is the evident statement

Premise Four is "God Exists", so thus it is also A, not D.

Premise 4 is the truth statement. Premise 3 is just a claim.

Think about an argument that you already know the answer:

If you have a car, it has four wheels
If it has four wheels, it has an engine
If it has an engine, it has cylinders
You have a car
________________
Your car has cylinders

This follows the same pattern.

If A then B
If B then C
If C then D
A
_______
D

Are you saying that the car has no cylinders because the D is the last claim you make? If you agree that this argument about the car is correct then my argument must be correct since it follows the same exact pattern.

What if my car was electric? (I might actually inherit one from my Dad... God forbid...) Or what if it was a rotary? (which it very nearly was... mulled buying an RX7 a few years ago...)

That the statement is true has nothing to do with the logic of your argument.... which is utterly flawed.

If you have a car, it has four wheels: Does not follow. As A =/= B, A suggests B is possible.

If it has four wheels, it has an engine: Does not follow, either.

If it has an engine, it has cylinders: Seriously, does not follow.

You have a car: And a car is a concrete, identifiable object, which we know has the value of TRUE.
________________
Your car has cylinders: And this also has a value of TRUE, but not because all of the statements follow. The Wonka piece is a better example.

Premises B and C are just using the definition of God. If you disagree with the definition of God that is perfectly fine, but I am using the classical definition so such an objection does not apply.

Premise A follows the same regard as Premise B and C. If you disagree that God exists, that is perfectly fine, but that has nothing to do with my argument. I am assuming that God exists to make a point about how he could possibly come into existence.

The problem is, the logic of the argument does not follow. While A->B->C are perfectly acceptable, for the reasons you state, but no logical argument can be made using an unknown variable to define the truthfulness of a known variable.

Premise D was confirmed by famine among others. There is plenty of scientific research to back up the behavior of leptons. If you disagree with this premise then I'm sorry you are just misinformed.

Among others includes me. D (spontaneous particle generation) has a concrete value of TRUE. That's why your argument can only follow logical steps coming from this one, because none of the other premises have a known value.

This is not true either. Notice Premise 2:

2.) If he is all powerful, then he can do all things possible.

Are flying spaghetti monsters possible? No

Is there any evidence of people spontaneously shooting lightning bolts out of their hands? No

So such claims would not pass premise 2.

God does not MAKE all things possible, he can do ALL things that are possible. He can not create flying spaghetti monsters, because to the best of my knowledge they do not exist. He cannot make 2+2=5, because that is not possible. He can not make a circle with four sides, because that is not possible. Nowhere in my argument, and nowhere have I said that he can make all things possible.

Which falls under the fallacy: If God can only do the possible, then God does not exist.

According to what we know about quantum theory, we can not know absolutely everything there is to know about the Universe. To be all powerful, to do everything that is possible, requires the knowledge of everything that is possible. And it is impossible to know everything that is possible.

Thus:

If God can do all that is possible, he must know (on some fundamental level) all.

To know all is impossible.

Thus, God does not exist. Not unless God can do the impossible.

-

And 2+2 does equal 5. Just ask Stephen Hawking. (Though some rogue idiots will claim 2+2 equals 6.)

If willy wonka is all powerful and can do all things possible, then yes you're right. However to my knowledge Willy Wonka does not have such qualities. Therefore he can not follow the same argument.

Willy Wonka is all powerful. Who can make a rainbow? Sprinkle it with dew?

Let me reiterate the vat example that I have already stated. It may help clear up your logic qualms as well.

There are two vats sitting on the table. The first one is labeled "Vat of Possibilities". Inside is a marble for each thing that is possible. Notice that since a spaghetti monster and a square circle are not possible, they do not have a marble in the vat.

The second vat is labeled "God's Ability". If God is all powerful, then the second vat should have the exact same amount of marbles in it then the first vat.

This is a story that illustrates through words my point. If God exists he can do all things that are possible. Leptons do a specific thing. God can do what leptons do.

Bedposts can't do what leptons do because they are not God and do not have his properties.
Petunias can't do what leptons do because they are not God and do not have his properties.
Willy Wonka can't do what leptons do because they are not God and do not have his properties.

God cannot create flying spaghetti monsters because they are not possible. They violate premise 2
God cannot create square circles because they are not possible. They violate premise 2
God CAN create zebras because zebras are possible using this argument
God CAN create turtles because turtles are possible using this argument

I don't think there is any clearer way to explain this. I hope this helps.

Here's the thing:

How does such an argument help prove the possibility of God? It doesn't. Which is why I reacted. It neither helps nor hinders the God argument to say that if an omnipotent God exists, he'd be omnipotent.

As a side note:

Flying spaghetti monsters are not impossible... merely improbable.

It is not statistically impossible for a bowl of petunias to spontaneously generate from its base molecules. It is not statistically improbable for all the air in the room to suddenly decide to stay on one side, leaving the other in a vacuum. It's just incredibly incredibly improbable for such things to happen.

Which means, if God did exist, and if he were omnipotent, he should be able to make a bowl of petunias appear in mid-air.

Bowls of petunias don't spontaneous appear in mid-air. Doesn't mean God does not exist... doesn't mean he exists either.

 

[WVUscion]

Since quoting the entire post would mean a huge post I will just say here that this post is directed toward Nikky.

I have said many, many, many times that this was not ment to be a proof for God. So saying that it not being a proof for God is not getting anywhere, since it was never ment to be.

If your problem with the argument is that any of premise 1-4 or conclusion are true, then that is a problem with soundness, not validity.

Validity means that IF the premises were true, then it would logically lead to the conclusion. THIS is what my claim is. My argument is Valid

Soundness is when an argument not only is valid but also has true premises. My argument is not sound. This is because any argument about God is impossible to be sound, they all assume either the existence or lack of existence of God.

The car example is the same. Are there cars without wheels? Yes there are. But that isn't the point. The point is not and never has been sound. However the argument is valid.

Now before this goes any further. If you are looking for a sound argument involving God I would stop wasting your time. There is no such thing. If you think you have resolutely proved that God does not exist you haven't. I'm sorry. But it is impossible. The same goes for if you think that you have proven the existence of God. You have not.

If you don't want to make assumptions about God existing or not existing, then it is impossible to talk about God. As I stated I think two posts ago, if you reject all assumptions in a conversation like this, then you will move no further then "yes there is an argument about the existence of God".

 

[CodeRedR51]

Can't believe I just saw this thread. I voted no. And I'm totally surprised by the current results.

 

[WVUscion]

Can't believe I just saw this thread. I voted no. And I'm totally surprised by the current results.

What about the results surprises you? So many that say yes? So many that say no? So many undecided? Why?

I'm curious thats all.

 

[niky]

I have said many, many, many times that this was not ment to be a proof for God. So saying that it not being a proof for God is not getting anywhere, since it was never ment to be.

I know. I'm debating the structure of the argument.

Like I said:

Bowls of petunias don't spontaneous appear in mid-air. Doesn't mean God does not exist... doesn't mean he exists either.

If your problem with the argument is that any of premise 1-4 or conclusion are true, then that is a problem with soundness, not validity.

Validity means that IF the premises were true, then it would logically lead to the conclusion. THIS is what my claim is. My argument is Valid

Soundness is when an argument not only is valid but also has true premises. My argument is not sound. This is because any argument about God is impossible to be sound, they all assume either the existence or lack of existence of God.

You're saying basically: "if God exists, he can do what can be done." and "This can be done, therefore, if God exists, he can do it."

I get it, yes, structurally, that is sound, but it says absolutely nothing in the argument about whether or not God exists.

The car example is the same. Are there cars without wheels? Yes there are. But that isn't the point. The point is not and never has been sound. However the argument is valid.

It isn't the same argument. Logically structured, the car argument is valid, but it's not the same argument.

The God argument is structured thus:

If Car, then car has internal combustion engine.

If Car has engine, it burns fuel.

Gasoline can be burned as fuel.

-

Car can burn gasoline.

-

All of which follow each other... but says nothing about the existence of Car other than "Car can burn gasoline."

Now before this goes any further. If you are looking for a sound argument involving God I would stop wasting your time. There is no such thing. If you think you have resolutely proved that God does not exist you haven't. I'm sorry. But it is impossible. The same goes for if you think that you have proven the existence of God. You have not.

I do not seek to resolutely disprove God. I'm just pointing out that an omnipotent God cannot exist in a manner in which we can perceive. He cannot possess existence as we know it within the observable universe.

If you don't want to make assumptions about God existing or not existing, then it is impossible to talk about God. As I stated I think two posts ago, if you reject all assumptions in a conversation like this, then you will move no further then "yes there is an argument about the existence of God".

It is possible. Merely reject the assumption that we know anything about God and proceed from there.

If we're talking about God, we assume that he is the source of all. Meaning he is omnipotent and omniscient.

From this, we can state that we know what God is not.

If we proceed from the assumption that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then we know that God is not a flower, not a fish, not a human, not a rock. We know that he is not a lepton. We know that, given the fundamental rules of the Universe as we understand them, God cannot exist within our observable time or space.

From there, we know what he is not, but we still do not know what he is, whether or not he exists, and whether or not we will find him hiding in configuration space, in the extended multiverse, or underneath a pile of dead turtles.

 

[WVUscion]

EDIT
Is it possible to bold things within a quote? I seem to be challenged in this regard lol.

WVUscion
If you don't want to make assumptions about God existing or not existing, then it is impossible to talk about God. As I stated I think two posts ago, if you reject all assumptions in a conversation like this, then you will move no further then "yes there is an argument about the existence of God".

Niky
It is possible. Merely reject the assumption that we know anything about God and proceed from there.

If we're talking about God, we assume that he is the source of all. Meaning he is omnipotent and omniscient.

From this, we can state that we know what God is not.

If we proceed from the assumption that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then we know that God is not a flower, not a fish, not a human, not a rock. We know that he is not a lepton. We know that, given the fundamental rules of the Universe as we understand them, God cannot exist within our observable time or space.

From there, we know what he is not, but we still do not know what he is, whether or not he exists, and whether or not we will find him hiding in configuration space, in the extended multiverse, or underneath a pile of dead turtles.

My first sentence was, YOU HAVE to make assumptions when talking about these things.

Your first was you dont have to. You're third sentence was not only an assumption but USED THE WORD assumption in it. If we "reject the assumption that we know anything about God", then you must reject that God is omnipotent. If God is not omnipotent, then your idea about how God cannot exist in the universe is baseless. God could be just like you and me, just somewhere else. EVERYTHING you base your argument on will be an assumption. Period.

I also highlighted a further assumption you made.

If you assume that God is omnipotent and omniscient then you have given a very interesting argument for the properties of God. That is great

However you have denied my use of assumptions in my argument. So I say to you, that you do not know God is omnipotent or omniscient so how can you know what God is or is not.

Is God omnipotent? Why do you think he is or isn't?
Is God omniscient? Why do you think he is or isn't?

Your argument is not sound because it has no basis in fact. Assumptions are not fact, especially when about God. However your argument is VERY valid and welcomed. I hope you read this far down, I'm not a mean guy I promise .

What we've been moving towards in the thread is things like you just said. You just stated your personal philosophy about the existence of God, or in your case the lack of existence. I'm interested in you explaining your opinion a little bit further. Would you say that God cannot exist in this universe, but could exist independent of the universe? Augustine would support this claim, I know how much you'd love hearing that. Or do you think that there is no God in this universe or anyplace else? If so what makes you come to that conclusion?

I can't wait for your reply!

 

[Duke]

EDIT
Is it possible to bold things within a quote? I seem to be challenged in this regard lol.

Use the [ brackets instead of the < ones 👍 or highlight the text you want to bold and click the B button above.

 

[niky]

My first sentence was, YOU HAVE to make assumptions when talking about these things.

Your first was you dont have to. You're third sentence was not only an assumption but USED THE WORD assumption in it. If we "reject the assumption that we know anything about God", then you must reject that God is omnipotent. If God is not omnipotent, then your idea about how God cannot exist in the universe is baseless. God could be just like you and me, just somewhere else. EVERYTHING you base your argument on will be an assumption. Period.

I also highlighted a further assumption you made.

If you assume that God is omnipotent and omniscient then you have given a very interesting argument for the properties of God. That is great

However you have denied my use of assumptions in my argument. So I say to you, that you do not know God is omnipotent or omniscient so how can you know what God is or is not.

Is God omnipotent? Why do you think he is or isn't?
Is God omniscient? Why do you think he is or isn't?

Your argument is not sound because it has no basis in fact. Assumptions are not fact, especially when about God. However your argument is VERY valid and welcomed. I hope you read this far down, I'm not a mean guy I promise .

What we've been moving towards in the thread is things like you just said. You just stated your personal philosophy about the existence of God, or in your case the lack of existence. I'm interested in you explaining your opinion a little bit further. Would you say that God cannot exist in this universe, but could exist independent of the universe? Augustine would support this claim, I know how much you'd love hearing that. Or do you think that there is no God in this universe or anyplace else? If so what makes you come to that conclusion?

I can't wait for your reply!

[/quote]

To get to the zero-point with God, we reject assumptions about his shape, form or gender. I also reject the fact that we know about his existence or non-existence. That's the starting point.

The one assumption I do make is that God is all-powerful. Not because this is in scripture, but because this is the definition of the word "God". An all powerful being. As opposed to "gods", which may be deities with power over smaller subsets of the universe.

If God is all powerful, then he must be the source of everything, for if anything is to be the source of God, then that thing or person or object would be more powerful than God.

Now here's where it gets sticky.

If God is all powerful, he must be all knowing. But that's also part of the definition.

According to our knowledge of the universe, an all-knowing and all-powerful being is not possible. Therefore God does not exist within this Universe.

If God exists, then, he exists outside this Universe.

If He exists outside this Universe we cannot perceive, see or measure him.

However, if He exists outside this universe, he can also do things which we consider impossible.

Therefore, God does not exist within our observable Universe, but there is no way for us to know whether he exists or not unless he does something infinitely improbable or impossible to show us he does. Although the presence of the impossible will not prove God... it will just prove the existence of things beyond our understanding.

Whether or not he does things which we know are possible and very probable doesn't matter, and can't prove or disprove his existence.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I must be so immensely confused then. If you come into the thread looking for a concrete proof of God then you are out of luck, there is none and there never will be one. If you enter this thread looking for a concrete refutation of God then you are also out of luck. There isn't one and there never will be.

If these are the only things that are viable discussion then the thread should be locked, because all opinions regarding the matter can be deduced to "we don't know since we can't prove it".

I was thinking that this thread is and has been used to further discussion on such questions as:

1 If there is a God what is he like?
2 If there isn't a God how does the world work?
3 If God exists how does he effect my life?
4 If God doesn't exist, what does that mean about the afterlife?

Questions one and two assume God exists. Question three and four assume that he doesn't. Would you say these questions aren't valid for discussion since we are silly for assuming something we can't prove?

If so then I have greatly misunderstood the purpose of this thread, and there is absolutely no way that I could possibly further it.

Nowhere have I said that this discussion should be limited to arguments concerning concrete proof of the existence of god (or vice versa). In fact, in the post you quoted, I said exactly the opposite, so I ask kindly that you don't put words in my mouth. I and many others have repeatedly classified such claims as unfalsifiable. That said, Bertrand Russell's teapot is useful to cite. I can't prove that said kettle isn't out there orbiting Mars, but that doesn't mean that it's at all likely.

What I am saying is that the ideas of theism/religion and atheism/agnosticism are most vitally important because they represent two fundamentally different ways of viewing the world that are locked in what appears to be a ceaseless culture war. The battlefield that this war is fought upon is nothing less pivotal than the future nature of mankind as a species. I think addressing the question in that context easily trumps unfalsifiable philosophical minutia. Don't think I'm taking a giant stinking crap on the field of philosophy either. It's vital to humanity's future as well, but like any discipline or idea, it can be wrongly focused.

As to your questions, let's assign them numbers 1 - 4, in bold.

1. Any answer you or anyone else might come up with is entirely untestable until such a god, gods, or god-force presents him-, her-, or itself, so what's the gain in guessing? If you think there are valuable insights that you can draw from examining this question, what are they? So far all I've seen is a long debate about the logical soundness of a single presuppository premise. So go ahead, presuppose God, and tell us how the fact that he could spawn from null space or create himself tells us anything helpful?

2. This is why science replaced organized religion and other supernatural concepts as a method of observing reality. It offers testable, predictive explanations as to how the world works. They are not perfect, but the nature of science demands that they not be perfect, nor should they ever be held as such. The fact that science as yet has no answer for questions such as the origin of matter in a physical universe or abiogenesis does not mean that the next logical step is to leap to examining the qualities of an unknown, unobservable, postulated entity or force. This is something we've seen before in this thread - a verbose reimagining of the "God of the Gaps".

3. Unknowable. Like #1, this god must manifest itself before any reliable claims can be made about it. So again, why bother guessing?

4. The non-existence of god would have no bearing on the idea of an afterlife. Both ideas (god or an afterlife) are equally unknowable, independent of each other, despite how often theology unites them.

 

[CodeRedR51]

What about the results surprises you? So many that say yes? So many that say no? So many undecided? Why?

I'm curious thats all.

So many that said no. I just figured that we were out numbered by believers. Guess this poll sort-of proves that wrong.

 

[Public'sTwin]

So many that said no. I just figured that we were out numbered by believers. Guess this poll sort-of proves that wrong.

In America, there's a direct correlation between education and adherence to religion, in that more years of education equates to lower belief in a higher power amongst a given population.

I believe that since the Opinions Forum is founded upon approx. 75-98% reasoned debate, there's a certain amount of alienation to those less educated, owing to the high standards of discourse imposed upon communication here.

Simply put, I think it just attracts more of us non-believers.

 

[Dotini]

If God exists he is:

a. All Powerful (Omnipotent)
b. All Knowing (Omniscient)
c. Perfectly Good

The problem with humans is that we have a very human way of looking at everything. Even when talking about a 'God', we use words like "him" and "he". We also imply some kind of existence in time of a God, when people say things like "In the old testiment, God was more annoyed", or "...God will be annoyed" (time, with a past/present/future, as we know it only exists in our universe).

If there is a 'God', I believe it is just a kind of entity, or existence, which possibly goes beyond our comprehension. Or maybe 'God' is everything; all matter, universe, time - it all is 'God'?

But I think the best thing people can do for a start is lose this nonsense of God being kind of a male/man-like figure who is "up" in the clouds (why up? What's up there?), possibly as far as being a big giant with a gray beard or something.

...assume that God is a complex system. The idea that "God is in all things" would suggest that God could be a lepton itself, or a particle itself, or whatever. But God, by nature would still be God.

Well, there are things out of His control. Take the Devil and the Fallen for example. From your definition of God:

What is perfectly good?

It is a very real possibility, and if there is a God, I would probably say that it would be out of our comprehension....

...I will however, remain an atheist, and a skeptic, because there has NEVER been a proven example of any form of divine intervention.

Do you believe that after life there is absolutely nothing? That we just die and everything is over? Or do you believe in some sort of afterlife that is independent of any higher power?

If there is a God what is he like?
If there isn't a God how does the world work?
If God exists how does he effect my life?
If God doesn't exist, what does that mean about the afterlife?

To get to the zero-point with God, we reject assumptions about his shape, form or gender. I also reject the fact that we know about his existence or non-existence. That's the starting point.

The one assumption I do make is that God is all-powerful. Not because this is in scripture, but because this is the definition of the word "God". An all powerful being. As opposed to "gods", which may be deities with power over smaller subsets of the universe.

If God is all powerful, then he must be the source of everything..

Although the presence of the impossible will not prove God... it will just prove the existence of things beyond our understanding.

Whether or not he does things which we know are possible and very probable doesn't matter, and can't prove or disprove his existence.

What I am saying is that the ideas of theism/religion and atheism/agnosticism are most vitally important because they represent two fundamentally different ways of viewing the world that are locked in what appears to be a ceaseless culture war. The battlefield that this war is fought upon is nothing less pivotal than the future nature of mankind as a species. I think addressing the question in that context easily trumps unfalsifiable philosophical minutia.

As to your questions, let's assign them numbers 1 - 4, in bold.

1. Any answer you or anyone else might come up with is entirely untestable until such a god, gods, or god-force presents him-, her-, or itself, so what's the gain in guessing? If you think there are valuable insights that you can draw from examining this question, what are they? So far all I've seen is a long debate about the logical soundness of a single presuppository premise. So go ahead, presuppose God, and tell us how the fact that he could spawn from null space or create himself tells us anything helpful?

2. This is why science replaced organized religion and other supernatural concepts as a method of observing reality. It offers testable, predictive explanations as to how the world works. They are not perfect, but the nature of science demands that they not be perfect, nor should they ever be held as such. The fact that science as yet has no answer for questions such as the origin of matter in a physical universe or abiogenesis does not mean that the next logical step is to leap to examining the qualities of an unknown, unobservable, postulated entity or force.

3. Unknowable. Like #1, this god must manifest itself before any reliable claims can be made about it.

4. The non-existence of god would have no bearing on the idea of an afterlife. Both ideas (god or an afterlife) are equally unknowable, independent of each other, despite how often theology unites them.

I've gone back over the last few pages and tried to capture some of the most important, interesting and provocative definitions, assumptions, observations and questions. Personally, I think we are making progress, and should keep working on it. I'm enjoying this discussion hugely, and very grateful to GTPlanet for providing this forum.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[WVUscion]

This reply isn't necessarily pointed towards anybody, it is more of a general statement that could be useful upon moving forward.

When it comes to science, humanity is generally naive. Every generation has a brand new device to prove a brand new theory in science. Further, every generation holds that their "newest" form of science is the ultimate fact of the universe, something that cannot be refuted. Lets first use an illustration of something we can all agree on.

Hundreds of years ago the geocentric theory was seen as fact. If you were to ask any leading scientist of the day why the geocentric theory was fact he would do something extremely simple. He would point up to the stars and go "see the stars, planets, and sun are all moving". Then he would point down to ground and go "see the earth, it is not moving under my feet, thus it must be stationary." He was using the cutting edge of the scientific method to make logical conclusions about the universe. Then, radicals presented the unthinkable. Maybe the earth is actually the one moving? Initially the response to such a radical thought is much the same as responses to radical thoughts today. "Are you crazy? I have scientific evidence to PROVE you are wrong!!!". Before more accurate observations could be recorded, the idea of where the earth was in relation to everything else could have been viewed as metaphysical.

I think of it in the same sense that chemistry professors can explain the use of significant figures. If you have a number, say 3.5749543, the final digit is always rounded. This is not an accurate number. It is MORE accurate then say 3.6, but still is only accurate to its last digit. Therefore you would be wrong in saying that 3.5749543 is a fact, because the final 3 is not a 3. It is between 2.5 and 3.49.

The same can be said for modern science. What we know today is not absolute fact. It is only what we perceive as fact using our most advanced technology. Lets look at the ramifications of presenting something as "fact".

Lets present X as our fact. If X is a fact then there can be nothing more. In a word X is stagnant. There is no progress for X. I can give an example that I believe would qualify for "X" :

Exactly 2 + Exactly 2 = Exactly 4

You guys may refute this if you would like. It is my understanding that there is no revolution that could be made that could prove this concept to be false. Maybe there is something that I'm not thinking. I'd love to hear it if it were the case.

We will all agree that science is not stagnant. That it is constantly being changed and reformulated to account for new amounts of data pouring in from ever more complicated observation devices.

So therefore when one uses science to try and prove/disprove something one has to assume that the science in which they are using is absolute fact. This may be uncomfortable for some, but because of the nature of human development it must be taken into account.

 

[orimarc]

There is no progress for X. I can give an example that I believe would qualify for "X" :

Exactly 2 + Exactly 2 = Exactly 4

You guys may refute this if you would like. It is my understanding that there is no revolution that could be made that could prove this concept to be false.

In soviet russia, 10 equals...no, that's not it.
In base four, 2 + 2 = 10.

Let me grab my coat...

 

[Dotini]

Hundreds of years ago the geocentric theory was seen as fact. If you were to ask any leading scientist of the day why the geocentric theory was fact he would do something extremely simple. He would point up to the stars and go "see the stars, planets, and sun are all moving". Then he would point down to ground and go "see the earth, it is not moving under my feet, thus it must be stationary." He was using the cutting edge of the scientific method to make logical conclusions about the universe. Then, radicals presented the unthinkable. Maybe the earth is actually the one moving? Initially the response to such a radical thought is much the same as responses to radical thoughts today. "Are you crazy? I have scientific evidence to PROVE you are wrong!!!". Before more accurate observations could be recorded, the idea of where the earth was in relation to everything else could have been viewed as metaphysical.

This is an ironical example of progress in science, as can be inferred from the following opening of Chapter 8 of Halton Arp's book, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science:

"The fact that the measured values of redshifts do not vary continuously but come in steps - certain preferred values - is so unexpected that conventional astronomy has never been able to accept it, in spite of the overwhelming observational evidence. Their problem is simply that if redshifts measure radial components of velocities, then galaxy velocities can be pointed at any angle to us, hence their redshifts must be continuously distributed. For the supposed recession velocities of quasars, to measure equal steps in all directions in the sky means we are at the center of a series of explosions. This is an anti-Copernican embarrassment. So a simple glance at the evidence discussed in this chapter shows that extragalactic redshifts, in general, cannot be velociities. Hence the whole foundation of extragalactic astronomy and Big Bang theory is swept away."

 

[Danoff]

This reply isn't necessarily pointed towards anybody, it is more of a general statement that could be useful upon moving forward.

When it comes to science, humanity is generally naive. Every generation has a brand new device to prove a brand new theory in science. Further, every generation holds that their "newest" form of science is the ultimate fact of the universe, something that cannot be refuted. Lets first use an illustration of something we can all agree on.

Hundreds of years ago the geocentric theory was seen as fact. If you were to ask any leading scientist of the day why the geocentric theory was fact he would do something extremely simple. He would point up to the stars and go "see the stars, planets, and sun are all moving". Then he would point down to ground and go "see the earth, it is not moving under my feet, thus it must be stationary." He was using the cutting edge of the scientific method to make logical conclusions about the universe. Then, radicals presented the unthinkable. Maybe the earth is actually the one moving? Initially the response to such a radical thought is much the same as responses to radical thoughts today. "Are you crazy? I have scientific evidence to PROVE you are wrong!!!". Before more accurate observations could be recorded, the idea of where the earth was in relation to everything else could have been viewed as metaphysical.

I think of it in the same sense that chemistry professors can explain the use of significant figures. If you have a number, say 3.5749543, the final digit is always rounded. This is not an accurate number. It is MORE accurate then say 3.6, but still is only accurate to its last digit. Therefore you would be wrong in saying that 3.5749543 is a fact, because the final 3 is not a 3. It is between 2.5 and 3.49.

The same can be said for modern science. What we know today is not absolute fact. It is only what we perceive as fact using our most advanced technology. Lets look at the ramifications of presenting something as "fact".

Lets present X as our fact. If X is a fact then there can be nothing more. In a word X is stagnant. There is no progress for X. I can give an example that I believe would qualify for "X" :

Exactly 2 + Exactly 2 = Exactly 4

You guys may refute this if you would like. It is my understanding that there is no revolution that could be made that could prove this concept to be false. Maybe there is something that I'm not thinking. I'd love to hear it if it were the case.

We will all agree that science is not stagnant. That it is constantly being changed and reformulated to account for new amounts of data pouring in from ever more complicated observation devices.

So therefore when one uses science to try and prove/disprove something one has to assume that the science in which they are using is absolute fact. This may be uncomfortable for some, but because of the nature of human development it must be taken into account.

Here's how I read the above:

1) Math is based on logic which is closer to fact than science (this is true)
2) Science is not based on fact, it is based on evidence (this is true)
3) Evidence has some measurement error and is essentially a representation of probability (this is true)
4) To try to prove or disprove God with science is impossible (this is true)

Luckily, science does not need to prove or disprove God. The burden of proof for the existence of God lies with those who insist that he exists.

Edit: Science does not try to prove or disprove anything in fact. It is merely a representation of the best current state of knowledge.

 

[Dotini]

Luckily, science does not need to prove or disprove God. The burden of proof for the existence of God lies
with those who insist that he exists.

Doesn't Objectivism insist God does not exist?

 

[Touring Mars]

every generation holds that their "newest" form of science is the ultimate fact of the universe, something that cannot be refuted.

Anyone who grasps the scientific method properly cannot also hold this opinion. I would rephrase this and say that every generation is limited to understand the universe as well as the facts available to them allow. As new facts become available, our understanding (i.e. our theories) will inevitably change. It doesn't mean that the facts change, just that our explanation of why those facts exist does.

It is perhaps slightly paradoxical that no matter how much one may cherish any particular theory, if one is to truly appreciate its value, one must also accept that it is refutable - this is particularly important for research scientists themselves. If a scientist cannot accept that his most cherished theory is incorrect, then he is not a proper scientist.

This is an ironical example of progress in science, as can be inferred from the following opening of Chapter 8 of Halton Arp's book, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science:

"The fact that the measured values of redshifts do not vary continuously but come in steps - certain preferred values - is so unexpected that conventional astronomy has never been able to accept it, in spite of the overwhelming observational evidence."

Speaking of clinging to pet theories...

 

[Dotini]

Anyone who grasps the scientific method properly cannot also hold this opinion. I would rephrase this and say that every generation is limited to understand the universe as well as the facts available to them allow. As new facts become available, our understanding (i.e. our theories) will inevitably change. It doesn't mean that the facts change, just that our explanation of why those facts exist does.

It is perhaps slightly paradoxical that no matter how much one may cherish any particular theory, if one is to truly appreciate its value, one must also accept that it is refutable - this is particularly important for research scientists themselves. If a scientist cannot accept that his most cherished theory is incorrect, then he is not a proper scientist.

Speaking of clinging to pet theories...

Arps' observations have been published in reviewed and refereed science journals all over the world, and his quantized redshift has been precisely confirmed by Bruce Guthrie and William Napier at the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh. Could you ring them up?

 

[Touring Mars]

Arps' observations have been published in reviewed and refereed science journals all over the world, and his quantized redshift has been precisely confirmed by Bruce Guthrie and William Napier at the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh.

This illustrates my point quite well - I'm not saying that they were wrong. Indeed, given their observations and their analysis, the evidence seemed quite compelling. But since then, a massive amount of new data has become available, and analytical methods have also improved, and subsequently the concept of redshift quantization has been refuted by the evidence.

 

[Dotini]

This illustrates my point quite well - I'm not saying that they were wrong. Indeed, given their observations and their analysis, the evidence seemed quite compelling. But since then, a massive amount of new data has become available, and analytical methods have also improved, and subsequently the concept of redshift quantization has been refuted by the evidence.

The only refutation I am aware of are the observations that when galaxies become closer together their orbital velocity about each other increases and smears out the quantized redshift steps. Is there another?

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Touring Mars]

As well as recent work by Tang and Zhang, a recent analysis by Hartnett suggests that the periodicity of redshifts from galaxies/quasars reported previously is due to the way the data has been collected/processed (a selection effect), and is most likely not an intrinsic property of the quasars themselves - in other words, the "evidence" of redshift periodicity that has been used to challenge Big Bang theory ("Hence the whole foundation of extragalactic astronomy and Big Bang theory is swept away." ) is itself on very shaky ground.

 

[Dotini]

As well as recent work by Tang and Zhang, a recent analysis by Hartnett suggests that the periodicity of redshifts from galaxies/quasars reported previously is due to the way the data has been collected/processed (a selection effect), and is most likely not an intrinsic property of the quasars themselves - in other words, the "evidence" of redshift periodicity that has been used to challenge Big Bang theory ("Hence the whole foundation of extragalactic astronomy and Big Bang theory is swept away." ) is itself on very shaky ground.

That is most interesting, and I thank you, Touring Mars, for taking the effort to support your case in depth. I have taken the step of attempting to contact Dr. Arp to see if there is anything he can add to his case. It will be interesting to hear from him should he choose to reply. Should he not, I will be happy to go blissfully forward with the Big Bang!


Edit: I note that one of your citations also characterizes high z quasars as not being associated with low z foreground galaxies - another crucial potential refutation of Arp, and the most important one.

Your truly,
Dotini

 

[niky]

Within our frame of experience, both Math and Logic are absolute and irrefutable.

Scientific theories are not. A scientific theory holds true only as long as it fits the evidence given.

For any scientific theory to be abolished, though, new evidence has to crop up that completely refutes the old evidence.

We start with the inevitable:
"The Earth is flat." -within our limited frame of reference, it does indeed appear the Earth is flat. Of course, it should be pointed out that a truly flat Earth would have no horizon... standing upon a very tall building looking out over a flat plain, you should be able to see for infinite distances, given the right weather. But you can't. (yet you can see the moon, which is clear out of the atmosphere, even on a sunny day)

This conundrum leads to the discovery that the Earth is round(-ish), by using mathematical calculations. Erastothenes may have been wrong about the size, but only by 1%. Does this make his science wrong? No. It just means the accuracy of the instruments available to him was limited.

Since then, we've known the Earth to be of a generally round (albeit lumpy) shape... and the chances of us receiving new evidence to completely overturn that are infinitely small.

 

[Joel]

This is a very interesting point. I actually have heard this argument used in opposite. Have you ever heard the saying "the only way you can win the lottery if you play"? While yes you are right in saying you have a 1 in 100000000 chance of being right if you play the lottery, you have a 0 in 100000000 chance of being right if you don't play the lottery.

I'm interested in what kind of atheism you adhere to? Do you believe that after life there is absolutely nothing? That we just die and everything is over? Or do you believe in some sort of afterlife that is independent of any higher power? I've known a few atheists in the past and the coolest thing about them is that each one has a different take on what atheism is, and what specific beliefs they have.

Although, what happens if I pick the wrong lottery to play, and I get killed for it? (Being sent to hell for taking the wrong religion). I think if there is a God, he'd rather me not believe in a deity at all, than "worship false gods".


And I personally believe that our lives simply end when we die. I have no way of being sure, but I think the whole heaven/hell idea was conjured up because humans have a tough time with dealing with simply not existing.

And I go by "the rejection of deities" for my Atheism. I can't say that God does or doesn't exist, but I choose not to live my life as if there is one, because like I said earlier, there is no evidence of any sort of divine intervention that has ever happened.


I have a friend who is a theist agnostic, she believes that none of our human religions are right, and she thinks there might be a "God in all of us" sort of thing. Sort of falls into the "everything happens for a reason" theory.

 

[Dotini]

I have a friend who is a theist agnostic, she believes that none of our human religions are right, and she thinks there might be a "God in all of us" sort of thing. Sort of falls into the "everything happens for a reason" theory.

"God in all of us" is very close to pantheism, which states that God is sum total of everything there is and the force that moves it. As the old hippy said, "God is everything."

Animism is the belief that everything has spirit, and the hylozooist thinks everything is alive.

 

[Joel]

"God in all of us" is very close to pantheism, which states that God is sum total of everything there is and the force that moves it. As the old hippy said, "God is everything."

Animism is the belief that everything has spirit, and the hylozooist thinks everything is alive.

I'm not 100% sure what she believes, but I think she believes there's probably a higher power, but she's not going to waste time worshipping one. Basically the same thing I believe, except swap probably with probably not.



EDIT: is it possible to change my vote? I voted "of course there's a God!" roughly a year and a half ago, and i'd sure as hell like to change it.

 

[WVUscion]

I think there was somebody else in this thread who believed not only that God was in all of us, but we were each a little bit of God. At least I think I read that a little earlier?

This would be interesting. You have to stretch it slightly but you could say that the conglomerate of all the people in the world, or universe, whichever you prefer, would be the equivalent to the definition of God. It also allows us to look at ourselves as being much more important in the universe.