0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: David I've taken the main attributes of God and shown that they don't work.In a different thread, in which we were discussing whether something could come from absolutely nothing, JP pointed out that, scientifically, one could not argue that this was impossible, because, outside the Universe, which is the source of all our observations, there could exist circumstances in which something could come from absolute nothing.You may, or may not agree with this, but there seems to be a similarity in that you are saying that because you can shoot down all the humanly devised ideas of God that you know about, that must prove that God does not exist. All the points you make are, I think, logically valid, but all they do is provide logical reasons why there is something amiss with these interpretations of God. Quote Those who lack that ability will just see the gaps….And those who lack the necessary intelligence will be unable to see the king’s new suit.
I've taken the main attributes of God and shown that they don't work.
Those who lack that ability will just see the gaps….
In a different thread, in which we were discussing whether something could come from absolutely nothing, JP pointed out that, scientifically, one could not argue that this was impossible, because, outside the Universe, which is the source of all our observations, there could exist circumstances in which something could come from absolute nothing.
You may, or may not agree with this, but there seems to be a similarity in that you are saying that because you can shoot down all the humanly devised ideas of God that you know about, that must prove that God does not exist.
Quote from: alancalverd on 11/03/2014 07:40:27That is exactly how we prove the nonexistence of anything else we have invented, like phlogiston, caloric, aether, and so forth: we determine the properties it must possess and see if they are demonstrable or at least selfconsistent.The test clearly can't be applied to something we didn't invent or infer from a discovery. Does god fit into either of those categories? If so, then the test is valid. If not, what is the evidence for its existence? Back to Occam!Right, and that all makes perfect sense.... inside the universe. But as I pointed out earlier, if there is a God or creator of some kind outside the universe, and if that God or creator were to have designed things in such a way as to not require any constant or even periodic attention, there wouldn't necessarily be any expectation of any observable phenomenon within the universe requiring it following the completion of the creative process (e.g. the Big Bang) that would tend to indicate one way or the other whether or not there was a God or creator to begin with in any convincing manner. It would be, for all intents and purposes, permanently outside our frame of reference and hence absolutely unknowable. I also pointed out earlier that if that were to be the case, a distinct possibility would still exist that even with all the data, literally knowing every single detail of every single aspect of the entire universe from start to finish a definitive answer to the question "Is there a God?" may still elude. You still seem to be stuck on the idea Dr. Calverd that after thoroughly studying the pot and finding that no observed phenomenon occurring in or around the pot requires a Potter, there is no Potter and never was. By resorting to that rationale, just as with those who claim to know with complete certainty that there is a God are self deluded to some extent.... those who claim to know with complete certainty that there isn't a God must be equally so.
That is exactly how we prove the nonexistence of anything else we have invented, like phlogiston, caloric, aether, and so forth: we determine the properties it must possess and see if they are demonstrable or at least selfconsistent.The test clearly can't be applied to something we didn't invent or infer from a discovery. Does god fit into either of those categories? If so, then the test is valid. If not, what is the evidence for its existence? Back to Occam!
Quote A "God" who believes he is God is also deluded, because he cannot possibly know if he is God. Too many assumptions here!The use of the definite article (or any article) with “God” is in itself an assumption that betrays blinkered thinking.
A "God" who believes he is God is also deluded, because he cannot possibly know if he is God.
The statement could be true, but only on the assumption that any concept of god must be impossible; even concepts that are not included in the range espoused by the major religions. This has certainly not been established in this discussion, or anywhere else, to my knowledge.
All gods are a reflection of human conceit. We make stuff, so vanity drives some people to think that all stuff must have been made by something like ourselves.
It's a scientific hypothesis: summative, predictive and disprovable. Show me one that isn't.
The evidence suggests that it wasn't.
There is no observed phenomenon that requires a supernatural creator.
It was your suggestion that the creator might have lost interest in his creation.
If "active" theists think there is a god of any sort, one must presume that either they are insane (by Einstein's test) or that they really think it can be influenced by human entreaty. Having no material evidence for the existence of a god, I can only take theists at their word and then ask if their word makes sense. It doesn't.
It doesn't matter, I'll just repeat post 26 one last time, where Dr. Calverd helped me to form the most concise version of my opinion. Unlike your argument that you predict will need ten thousand words, there's really nothing I can add to my simply stated argument requiring just one post.... I should've just exited the thread at that point.
Even Einstein, when questioned about whether or not he believed in God had the good sense to remain noncommittal....
If either theists or atheists (active or not) think that they have conclusively determined that there either is or is not a God or creator, one must presume that they are irrational for thinking that they have the needed data, or even thinking they know how much data is needed, to make a conclusive determination of fact. I can only take theists and atheists at their word and then ask if their word makes sense. It doesn't....
Atheists insist there's no God without having all the data needed to arrive at any conclusive determination of fact. They tend to use untestable scientific theory (another form of belief) as a vehicle for thinking that a God or creator is not real and does not exist.
The two positions are both similarly founded on an inherently flawed line of belief based reasoning leading to oppositely extreme equally irrational delusory conclusions.
If you don't stick to actual definitions of God, you aren't discussing God.
Perhaps we should look outside religions for a broader concept of God.
Quote from: Bill S on 14/03/2014 20:34:48Perhaps we should look outside religions for a broader concept of God.This stinks of the philosopher's universal anschluss: "Philosophy is the study of knowledge, science (art, music...) is about knowledge, so it is a branch of philosophy. As I am a philospher I know more about everything and anything than you do." Vacuous, narcissitic bullshit.
Intellectual honesty (also known as scientific method) works the other way around: observe the phenomenon, hypothesise the cause, test the hypothesis. If you don't have a phenomenon that indicates a god hypothesis, the hypothesis is redundant and whatever you invented to make it work does not exist.
If you call the universe God, then by that definition you have a God
QuoteIf you don't stick to actual definitions of God, you aren't discussing God.That assumes that the definitions of God espoused by the world's religions are the only possible definitions. How sure could you be that that is a correct assumption?
Quote from: DavidIf you call the universe God, then by that definition you have a God That raises an interesting idea. I must give that some thought see what I can come up with.
Reasoning along these lines, the cosmos is God; I am God, as are you, as is the lowliest creature or the smallest particle.
Aemilius, you know we are on to a looser here, don't you?
If you label the set of all distinct things as A, then no one thing a can be A because a doesn't contain (A-a) by definition of "distinct".