Do you believe in God?

[Scaff]

I'm vitally interested in the requirement (and enforcement, sanctions and taboos) part, and just exactly how that gets done. As a libertarian with liberal social views and conservative economic views, I'm acutely aware of always being in a tiny minority. I have no defense against the tyranny of the majority. One false step and I'm road kill.

Oh the inhumanity of your oppression.

 

[Imari]

I'm vitally interested in the requirement (and enforcement, sanctions and taboos) part, and just exactly how that gets done. As a libertarian with liberal social views and conservative economic views, I'm acutely aware of always being in a tiny minority. I have no defense against the tyranny of the majority. One false step and I'm road kill.

The word "require" there means that it is a necessary condition that science and belief stay in their respective lanes for them to happily co-exist. If they do not, then they clash as they're two fundamentally opposed ideas trying to occupy the same philosophical ground.

I make no suggestion that there should be some sort of enforcement authority going around suppressing speech that does not conform, firing metaphorical tear gas at anyone who dares violate this golden principle that I have enunciated. People can say what they like and will continue to do so regardless of my opinion. It's just that it's not actually productive at all to treat beliefs as if they're objective facts of reality, nor is it productive to treat objective facts as if they are simply in someone's head. You know, that whole honesty and truth thing that I know you're quite fond of.

While we're at it, this is not a political thread. It's an intellectual one. If people disagree, I'm happy to discuss it with them. Bringing in the concept of practical enforcement of how people should think and getting prematurely defensive about your political affiliation in a thread about an apolitical topic shows that maybe you've been spending a little too much time on the many current hot button political topics.

I get it, it's hard not to think that way at the moment when it seems like so much comes down to politics. But bringing politics into a discussion about beliefs and science isn't helping. Calm your feelings of oppression, and you'll realise that your vital interest is something that has no answer, nor should it.

 

[Chris123]

I see this thread is still going strong. What strikes me is maybe the thread title should be, "Can you prove God exists?". Belief in something does not have to be rooted in scientific fact for the belief to exist. There really is no right or wrong answer that can be proven one way or the other.

And if the thread title is changed, one might ask, "Can you prove God doesn't exist?" which the scientific community will quickly respond with, 'that's not how science works'. A scientific philosopher may even go as far as to say to prove that something does not exist, one would have to prove the existence of everything to prove the void or non-existence of something that doesn't exist with everything.

I am, however, glad to see continued discussion on the topic. I think it's worth the time to explore things we don't understand or come to blindly accept.

Absolutely spot on, this is a discussion after all. We state our opinions are they're debated, there is no absolute scientific proof or evidence required for one to have an opinion. It is my firm belief that Science will never find any absolute empirical evidence for the proof of God, but that however is not even needed to see some pretty obvious truths.

Absent of visible light or absent of anything on the electromagnetic spectrum because those are two very different things.

Well the guy said zero light, but I'm going to assume anything at all of the spectrum, including any form of radiation. Of course its possible to have an environment with no visible light, I could easily create that in my attic, its a very straight forward process. My point however was that its not possible to have absolutely zero light of any kind at all, and the guy said that not only it was but that he had proven me wrong, to which I ask show me the proof that its possible.

If it's possible for one thing to not exist, which you have now admitted to being true, its possible for everything to not have existed.

Having one thing that never existed is not at all the same as having absolutely nothing that ever existed. Paint me an actual picture of what its like to have absolutely nothing exist, total nothingness without first using something that exists. Its pretty clear that the nature of reality is that of something always having existed rather than ever having had nothing at all exist. How do we know that there is existence? Well just look around and notice existence, notice that you are an awareness that exists itself.

 

[Rallywagon]

Absolutely spot on, this is a discussion after all. We state our opinions are they're debated, there is no absolute scientific proof or evidence required for one to have an opinion. It is my firm belief that Science will never find any absolute empirical evidence for the proof of God, but that however is not even needed to see some pretty obvious truths.



Well the guy said zero light, but I'm going to assume anything at all of the spectrum, including any form of radiation. Of course its possible to have an environment with no visible light, I could easily create that in my attic, its a very straight forward process. My point however was that its not possible to have absolutely zero light of any kind at all, and the guy said that not only it was but that he had proven me wrong, to which I ask show me the proof that its possible.



Having one thing that never existed is not at all the same as having absolutely nothing that ever existed. Paint me an actual picture of what its like to have absolutely nothing exist, total nothingness without first using something that exists. Its pretty clear that the nature of reality is that of something always having existed rather than ever having had nothing at all exist. How do we know that there is existence? Well just look around and notice existence, notice that you are an awareness that exists itself.

Sure. Things exist now. But at one point you didn't exist, and at a point before that humans didn't exist, and before that dinosaurs didn't exist, and before that life on this planet didnt exist, and at a point before that the planet didnt exist, and at a point before that out star system didnt exist, and at a point before that our galaxy didnt exist, and at a point before that the universe didn't exist. At that point, nothing existed.
Now since science doesn't prove naught, we do not prove nothing existed. We do experiments and analysis and other science standards to try and prove what might have been there before there was no universe. When those test and experiments, etc. come back with nothing, the scientists and researchers begin to theorize the idea that maybe there was nothing. Absolute nothing. There is lots of research, some of it posted in replies to you, all of the utensils you need to paint your picture. Pro tip though, maybe clean off some of that pallette and canvas you have. I think your so full of paint already that nothing else will get through.

 

[Famine]

Oh, and I'm still waiting on someone to show me proof that

We're all still waiting on you to answer a single question while you're demanding answers to yours.

it's possible to create an environment with zero light.

They literally exist in nature. We pretty famously imaged one in April last year, indirectly of course because it emits zero light...

And while it's also pretty simple to do yourself, because you only need six bits of opaque material (you can grab some carbon nanotubes and a vacuum pump if you want to gild the lily), we've also constructed extremely complex chambers that cannot have any light in them because any photon would affect their purpose of detecting neutrinos...


How would you differentiate something that exists from something that does not? What are the qualities and properties of a thing that exists in order for us to say it exists, and to say something that does not have those qualities and properties does not?

What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?

 

[Imari]

Absolutely spot on, this is a discussion after all. We state our opinions are they're debated, there is no absolute scientific proof or evidence required for one to have an opinion.

Well, but if you're stating that your opinion is something objective, like "the big bang didn't happen by accident", then you can reasonably expect the first question to be "so why do you think that?" You can think whatever you like, but if your opinion is unsubstantiated it's not going to stop people from calling your opinion stupid or wrong.

It's a common misconception that an opinion cannot be challenged. Subjective experiences cannot sensibly be challenged in this way, but if someone is making a factual claim then proof or evidence is completely reasonable. For example, certain people are of the opinion that the earth is flat. When they present this opinion, it is completely reasonable to question the factual basis for the claim.

This can easily extend to philosophical claims like the idea that there is no such concept as non-existence. This is a claim that would on the face of it seem to be defying everyday experience, such as the lack of food in my fridge. And so some sort of justification for this idea seems reasonable.

 

[Chris123]

Sure. Things exist now. But at one point you didn't exist, and at a point before that humans didn't exist, and before that dinosaurs didn't exist, and before that life on this planet didnt exist, and at a point before that the planet didnt exist, and at a point before that out star system didnt exist, and at a point before that our galaxy didnt exist, and at a point before that the universe didn't exist. At that point, nothing existed.
Now since science doesn't prove naught, we do not prove nothing existed. We do experiments and analysis and other science standards to try and prove what might have been there before there was no universe. When those test and experiments, etc. come back with nothing, the scientists and researchers begin to theorize the idea that maybe there was nothing. Absolute nothing. There is lots of research, some of it posted in replies to you, all of the utensils you need to paint your picture. Pro tip though, maybe clean off some of that pallette and canvas you have. I think your so full of paint already that nothing else will get through.

You can make two assumptions, the first being that there is nothing outside of this universe, and therefore by definition it has to be infinite because for nothing to exist outside of it it must be infinite. If its not infinite then by definition there must be something that exists outside of it, and if its infinite then well it has infinite possibility and therefore infinite possibility is true nature of reality.

The second assumption is that there is something outside of this universe, and by definition the universe then has to be finite. If the universe is finite then by definition it is not absolute and there is something that exists outside of it. Then where are the limits of the something that exists outside of the universe, and if that has limits there must be then something that exists outside of that and so on and so forth. Where exactly are the true limits of reality? This conundrum keeps on going for forever until you realize the obvious truth, that there can't ever be any real limits to reality, because if there are limits then that means something must exist outside of those limits and this will keep on going essentially forever. The only truth is that there are no limits, there is no beginning or end, that the only truth of reality is that of infinite possibility either way you look at it. If it has limits, then by definition there has to be something beyond those limits. If there is nothing beyond those limits then by definition there are in fact no limits and it is actually infinite, so which is it. Either way all roads point to infinite possibility being the only truth to reality.

Of course this can never be scientifically proven, but that's not why we're here is it, this is a place for debating and discussing and these are just my views.

Well, but if you're stating that your opinion is something objective, like "the big bang didn't happen by accident", then you can reasonably expect the first question to be "so why do you think that?" You can think whatever you like, but if your opinion is unsubstantiated it's not going to stop people from calling your opinion stupid or wrong.

Fair enough I guess.

@Famine Still waiting on you to show me how you proved that its possible to create an environment with zero light of any kind, since according to you you did prove me wrong after all right?

 

[Famine]

Either way all roads point to infinite possibility being the only truth to reality.

If possibility is infinite then there must be the possibility of nothing, or else possibility is not infinite. That's the third time you've been told this.

@Famine Still waiting on you

You're still demanding answers from others while leaving their questions which they asked first unanswered.


How would you differentiate something that exists from something that does not? What are the qualities and properties of a thing that exists in order for us to say it exists, and to say something that does not have those qualities and properties does not?

What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?

to show me how you proved that its possible to create an environment with zero light of any kind, since according to you you did prove me wrong after all right?

I never said I'd proved you wrong. I simply stated that you were wrong. And look up two posts. They're easy to make, we've made very complex ones, and they exist in nature.


You're going to need to show that you're actually taking part in a discussion soon; continually ignoring questions and answers is not that.

 

[Danoff]

@Famine Still waiting on you to show me how you proved that its possible to create an environment with zero light of any kind, since according to you you did prove me wrong after all right?

It's called a box.

and no, I do not accept your goalpost moving to anything on the EM spectrum

 

[Chris123]

That's fundamentally untrue. It is entirely within human capabilities to build an environment within which there is zero light

Show me the proof.

 

[Famine]

Show me the proof.

Again, ignoring the answer.

And while it's also pretty simple to do yourself, because you only need six bits of opaque material (you can grab some carbon nanotubes and a vacuum pump if you want to gild the lily), we've also constructed extremely complex chambers that cannot have any light in them because any photon would affect their purpose of detecting neutrinos...

And they exist in nature, which by itself is an outright rebuttal of your premise that it's impossible to be lightless.

And you still haven't attempted to answer what I asked you first...


How would you differentiate something that exists from something that does not? What are the qualities and properties of a thing that exists in order for us to say it exists, and to say something that does not have those qualities and properties does not?

What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?

 

[Chris123]

Again, ignoring the answer. And you still haven't attempted to answer what I asked you first.

"you only need six bits of opaque material"

A demonstrated example would be nice.

"we've also constructed extremely complex chambers that cannot have any light in them"

Where are these chambers, they sound interesting.

Let me be clear in that I said zero light "of any kind", not just visible light, again I'll wait.

 

[Scaff]

"you only need six bits of opaque material"

A demonstrated example would be nice.

"we've also constructed extremely complex chambers that cannot have any light in them"

Where are these chambers, they sound interesting.

Let me be clear in that I said zero light "of any kind", not just visible light, again I'll wait.

You do know what a black hole is I take it?

 

[Famine]

A demonstrated example would be nice.

A box. You've already been told this.

Where are these chambers, they sound interesting.

They are neutrino detectors. I already told you this.

You are literally ignoring answers.

Let me be clear in that I said zero light "of any kind", not just visible light

What are you determining as "light" then? Light is simply the name for the visible part of the EM spectrum.

I'll wait.

Cool. I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions I asked you before you went down this ridiculous path.

How would you differentiate something that exists from something that does not? What are the qualities and properties of a thing that exists in order for us to say it exists, and to say something that does not have those qualities and properties does not?

What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?


And I won't wait. You're ignoring question and answers, and frankly nobody is gaining anything from this conversation in which you won't allow for any form of self-reflection.

 

[Rallywagon]

A box. You've already been told this.

They are neutrino detectors. I already told you this.

You are literally ignoring answers.

What are you determining as "light" then? Light is simply the name for the visible part of the EM spectrum.

Cool. I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions I asked you before you went down this ridiculous path.

How would you differentiate something that exists from something that does not? What are the qualities and properties of a thing that exists in order for us to say it exists, and to say something that does not have those qualities and properties does not?

What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that does not exist?


And I won't wait. You're ignoring question and answers, and frankly nobody is gaining anything from this conversation in which you won't allow for any form of self-reflection.

I think he means energy. I just think the space and bandwidth of his mind is overly saturated with his own opinion and self to properly articulate it. It's also likely why he's having so much issue picking up anything anyone is putting down.
I also dont think he has an answer for your question. I am reminded of a freshman college student who thinks they are "gods gift" and also just happened to really pass that philosophy class. To smart to get out his own damn way.
I am certain a revisit to this conversation in 15-20 years would yield better results.

 

[Scaff]

It's called a box.

and no, I do not accept your goalpost moving to anything on the EM spectrum

Make it from nice and thick ancient lead and it’s going to more than do the job.

 

[Chris123]

@Famine I mean any sort of light on the entire electromagnetic spectrum, you do realize that there is a whole spectrum of light that extends far beyond human perception?

I could go into my attic if I wanted conditions void of any light visible to human perception, that's not what I'm asking though is it. As someone else clearly pointed out, I'm essentially saying the same thing as find me a space where there is absolutely zero energy of any kind at all. Of course you won't be able to find me any and will of course no doubt have to avoid directly answering the straight forward question as you usually do. Black holes have extremely large amounts of mass and therefore energy so that answer is automatically void, keep trying though.

 

[Famine]

@Famine I mean any sort of light on the entire electromagnetic spectrum, you do realize that there is a whole spectrum of light that extends far beyond human perception?

I not only realise that there's a whole EM spectrum, but stated it very clearly in a post you couldn't be bothered to read.

What are you determining as "light" then? Light is simply the name for the visible part of the EM spectrum.

As someone else clearly pointed out, I'm essentially saying the same thing as find me a space where there is absolutely zero energy of any kind at all.

Light is energy, but not all energy is light. You're not "essentially" saying anything - you were stating it's not possible to have zero light... which it is. Now you realise you're hopelessly wrong, you're trying to change your argument.

Black holes have extremely large amounts of mass and therefore energy so that answer is automatically void

But no light. You said light, and the terms "light" and "energy" are not interchangeable.

keep trying though.

After moving your goalposts repeatedly and ignoring both answers and the questions I asked you before you asked any questions ten times, you're quite clearly not interested in nor engaging in any kind of discussion - and that was your last chance to do so. I did say that I wouldn't wait...

 

[UKMikey]

He'll probably treat this as a victory. We can't handle the "truth". Especially if he sticks his fingers in his ears, refuses to cite any sources for his wild claims and moves the criteria of the proof he unreasonably demands in return around with abandon whenever anyone provides a valid counterargument. Not the most constructive method of discourse but I guess that’s the nature of an ontological approach.

 

[Danoff]

I honestly don't even know where this "show me a lack of light" thing is supposed to go. I think it's supposed to go something like "nothing can't exist without something, therefore something, therefore god". But "nothing" is everywhere, so it definitely exists (in so far as a lack of existence can exist). I don't know why he thinks it couldn't exist without something given that it exists with something. But also, suppose that it were true that nothing is impossible to be all that exists (and I think it might very well be). Suppose that the existence of nothing required the existence of something, simply because it turns out to be a form of possibility, and so it must (I'm thinking in a quantum mechanical sense here). This would at least appear to be similar to the "nothing can't exist without something" claim. And yet, that still doesn't leave us with "therefore god". I think it basically has to turn out that our universe is an expression of an eventuality. I some sense, it has to exist. And yet, that doesn't prove god, that argues against god. If the universe has to exist, god absolutely doesn't.

So I feel like it would be fair to turn that same argument back around on @Chris123 and say "show me nothing without something", and since he says he can't, you can argue that, AHA! God is not necessary.

 

[Imari]

Find me a space with zero mass or energy of any kind...

This is very different from "show me a space with zero light". A space with zero EM radiation is technically possible, not so much practically possible with our current level of technology. Any enclosed space at absolute zero made of a material that is not a perfect reflector will eventually end up at zero radiation.

A space with zero mass or energy is by definition impossible. We know that the universe has zero point energy, even if there's currently not agreement on exactly what it is. What you've essentially said is "show me a space within the universe that is not within the universe", and anyone who has made it past primary school can see that's a contradiction. The answer to a contradiction is not "well you can't, so I must be right", but instead "the question is malformed, please try again".

Which is what @Famine and others have been trying to get you to see all along. You're not thinking clearly about the question, so obviously the answers are going to be nonsense. And if you can't clearly express the question, then any answers you claim to have should be taken with a massive grain of salt.

 

[Scaff]

As I have said, a black hole has mass and therefore is still not entirely void of energy.

You didn't say it had to have zero mass, you have moved the goalposts simply because (another) valid example was provided.

Find me a space with zero mass or energy of any kind,

That's not what you asked for at all, you don't get to simply shift the gaol every time you have been shown valid examples.

or just block me from being able to reply to this post because you can't actually hang with what I'm saying, whatever works for you.

You've been blocked because you're not an honest broker, you refuse to answer questions asked of you, repeatedly moved the goalposts and resorted to logical fallacies in pretty much every post.

 

[Danoff]

Rationality Rules just posted a video debunking the notion that "because the universe behaves mathematically... uh... god". And it was well done. But it got me thinking about the premise (which RR rightly attacks, just not very hard), which is that the universe behaves mathematically. That's not strictly true, and it breaks down in some very obvious ways. One of those ways is turbulence, which is ubiquitous in nature, and very, very hard to predict with mathematics.

So if you ever hear a theist explaining that the ability of math to model the universe is a miracle, you might remind them that your local weatherman hasn't figured this out yet.

 

[TheGeologist]

Belief in something does not have to be rooted in scientific fact for the belief to exist.

If there is no proof or reasoning that something exists, why should one believe in it in the first place?

I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.

-Isaac Asimov

 

[Pako]

If there is no proof or reasoning that something exists, why should one believe in it in the first place?

I would say that "proof" is different from "reasoning". I'm in my basement, getting my game on, and my buddy comes over and says, "Hey, it's nice out side, lets get our mountain bikes and hit the trail!". I have no proof that he is telling me the truth, but I have reason to believe him and I go upstairs.

 

[Rallywagon]

I would say that "proof" is different from "reasoning". I'm in my basement, getting my game on, and my buddy comes over and says, "Hey, it's nice out side, lets get our mountain bikes and hit the trail!". I have no proof that he is telling me the truth, but I have reason to believe him and I go upstairs.

Except, when you get outside, you see the sun and have the proof. Dont don't have to operate under faith that the proof exists.

 

[Pako]

Except, when you get outside, you see the sun and have the proof. Dont don't have to operate under faith that the proof exists.

Yes, I am afforded affirmation that my belief is in fact true once I step outside, but my belief came before affirmation.

 

[Rallywagon]

Yes, I am afforded affirmation that my belief is in fact true once I step outside, but my belief came before affirmation.

Do you think you might be more hesitant to believe if you know you can't verify? What if that same friend said he just saw big foot running through the forest, or that he made sweet sweet love to Selma Hayek before she left on a trip to Spain?

 

[Pako]

Do you think you might be more hesitant to believe if you know you can't verify? What if that same friend said he just saw big foot running through the forest, or that he made sweet sweet love to Selma Hayek before she left on a trip to Spain?

Bigfoot maybe, sweet love to Selma Hayek?

I think everyone should question their beliefs and find their own affirmation regardless what that result is. Just like walking out of the basement, you need to take steps. That is part of your own personal journey. Directly questioning the existence of God, I very much believe it is a personal journey that will take you to your own conclusion that is personal to you.

 

[TheGeologist]

I would say that "proof" is different from "reasoning". I'm in my basement, getting my game on, and my buddy comes over and says, "Hey, it's nice out side, lets get our mountain bikes and hit the trail!". I have no proof that he is telling me the truth, but I have reason to believe him and I go upstairs.

Okay, but it's easy enough to test.

Also, it is not a crazy idea that it might be nice outside. I need very little evidence to believe such a statement, therefore I think it is sufficient to trust their eyewitness account.

Besides, there is a pretty big difference in belief of it being nice outside vs an all powerful being creating the universe and all of humanity.