The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: God , Church , pedophilia , anti-homosexuality , Međugorje scam  (Read 20707 times)

Online alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Bill: We agree on the crucial point, that religious belief is a cover for ignorance and prejudice. Hence my stance that I don't care what others believe, as long as they don't use it as an excuse for their actions. And "action" includes all levels of evangelism from hellfire preaching via pedophilia to inquisition and jihad.

As for William of Ockham

Quote
His work in this period became the subject of controversy, and Ockham was summoned before the Papal court of Avignon in 1324 under charges of heresy. During the Middle Ages, theologian Peter Lombard's Sentences (1150) had become a standard work of theology, and many ambitious theological scholars wrote commentaries on it. William of Ockham was among these scholarly commentators. However, Ockham's commentary was not well received by his colleagues, or by the Church authorities. In 1324, his commentary was condemned as unorthodox by a synod of bishops, and he was ordered to Avignon, France, to defend himself before a papal court. For two years, he was confined to a Franciscan house, until he was condemned as a heretic in 1326.

he's my kind of guy!
« Last Edit: 26/02/2014 07:32:03 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd

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.

Quote from: alancalverd

It's a scientific hypothesis: summative, predictive and disprovable. Show me one that isn't. 
     

Sorry Dr. Calverd, I didn't see the word "hypothetically" there anywhere, reads declaratively to me. Even as a hypothetical (defined as an untested proposed explanation) though, when it comes to arriving at any conclusive determination of fact as to whether or not there's a God or creator of some kind focussing on theists, even if you're right, can't help to support your thinking that.... "There is no God."     

Quote from: alancalverd
The evidence suggests that it wasn't.
Quote from: alancalverd
There is no observed phenomenon that requires a supernatural creator.

Agreed that there's no observed phenomenon requiring a God or creator, that's a given.
 
But as we discussed, if there is a God or creator of some kind, and if that God or creator were to have designed things in such a way as to not require it's constant attention, there wouldn't necessarily be any expectation of any observable phenomenon "requiring a God" following the completion of the creative process (e.g. the Big Bang) that would tend to indicate one way or the other in any convincing way whether or not there was a God or creator. That being the case, a distinct possibility would still exist, 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.
 
What you seem to be saying (presumably with a straight face) is that after very carefully observing the Pot over an extended period of time, science has conclusively determined (theoretically) that since there's no observed phenomenon occurring in or around the Pot requiring a Potter.... there is no Potter!

Quote from: alancalverd
It was your suggestion that the creator might have lost interest in his creation.

I actually didn't suggest anything, what I said was "there's nothing to suggest that a creator (or God) should have to continue on within the creation as a functional element." I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to whether or not a God or creator (if there is one) would or should be interested in its creation, in fact for all I know... it may not even be aware it created anything!

Quote from: alancalverd

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.


To hell with Einstein....
 
If either "active" theists or "active" atheists think they have conclusively determined that there either is or is not a God or creator, one must presume that they are irrational, or that they really think that they have enough data 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....

Theists tend to use faith (a form of belief) as a vehicle for thinking that a God or creator is real and exists.

Atheists tend to use untestable scientific theories (a 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 conlusions, hence they are both by definition self deluded.


Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained....
 
"Your question about God is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no."
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd

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.

Quote from: alancalverd

It's a scientific hypothesis: summative, predictive and disprovable. Show me one that isn't. 
     

Sorry Dr. Calverd, I didn't see the word "hypothetically" there anywhere, reads declaratively to me. Even as a hypothetical (defined as an untested proposed explanation) though, when it comes to arriving at any conclusive determination of fact as to whether or not there's a God or creator of some kind focussing on theists, even if you're right, can't help to support your thinking that.... "There is no God."     

Quote from: alancalverd
The evidence suggests that it wasn't.
Quote from: alancalverd
There is no observed phenomenon that requires a supernatural creator.

Agreed that there's no observed phenomenon requiring a God or creator, that's a given.
 
But as we discussed, if there is a God or creator of some kind, and if that God or creator were to have designed things in such a way as to not require it's constant attention, there wouldn't necessarily be any expectation of any observable phenomenon "requiring a God" following the completion of the creative process (e.g. the Big Bang) that would tend to indicate one way or the other in any convincing way whether or not there was a God or creator. That being the case, a distinct possibility would still exist, 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.
 
What you seem to be saying (presumably with a straight face) is that after very carefully observing the Pot over an extended period of time, science has conclusively determined (theoretically) that since there's no observed phenomenon occurring in or around the Pot requiring a Potter.... there is no Potter!

Quote from: alancalverd
It was your suggestion that the creator might have lost interest in his creation.

I actually didn't suggest anything, what I said was "there's nothing to suggest that a creator (or God) should have to continue on within the creation as a functional element." I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to whether or not a God or creator (if there is one) would or should be interested in its creation, in fact for all I know... it may not even be aware it created anything!

Quote from: alancalverd

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.


To hell with Einstein....
 
If either "active" theists or "active" atheists think they have conclusively determined that there either is or is not a God or creator, one must presume that they are irrational, or that they really think that they have enough data 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....

Theists tend to use faith (a form of belief) as a vehicle for thinking that a God or creator is real and exists.

Atheists tend to use untestable scientific theories (a 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 conlusions, hence they are both by definition self deluded.


Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained....
 
"Your question about God is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no."
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd

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.

Quote from: alancalverd

It's a scientific hypothesis: summative, predictive and disprovable. Show me one that isn't. 
     

Sorry Dr. Calverd, I didn't see the word "hypothetically" there anywhere, reads declaratively to me. Even as a hypothetical (defined as an untested proposed explanation) though, when it comes to arriving at any conclusive determination of fact as to whether or not there's a God or creator of some kind focussing on theists, even if you're right, can't help to support your thinking that.... "There is no God."     

Quote from: alancalverd
The evidence suggests that it wasn't.
Quote from: alancalverd
There is no observed phenomenon that requires a supernatural creator.

Agreed that there's no observed phenomenon requiring a God or creator, that's a given.
 
But as we discussed, if there is a God or creator of some kind, and if that God or creator were to have designed things in such a way as to not require it's constant attention, there wouldn't necessarily be any expectation of any observable phenomenon "requiring a God" following the completion of the creative process (e.g. the Big Bang) that would tend to indicate one way or the other in any convincing way whether or not there was a God or creator. That being the case, a distinct possibility would still exist, 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.
 
What you seem to be saying (presumably with a straight face) is that after very carefully observing the Pot over an extended period of time, science has conclusively determined (theoretically) that since there's no observed phenomenon occurring in or around the Pot requiring a Potter.... there is no Potter!

Quote from: alancalverd
It was your suggestion that the creator might have lost interest in his creation.

I actually didn't suggest anything, what I said was "there's nothing to suggest that a creator (or God) should have to continue on within the creation as a functional element." I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to whether or not a God or creator (if there is one) would or should be interested in its creation, in fact for all I know... it may not even be aware it created anything!

Quote from: alancalverd

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.


To hell with Einstein....
 
If either "active" theists or "active" atheists think they have conclusively determined that there either is or is not a God or creator, one must presume that they are irrational, or that they really think that they have enough data 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....

Theists tend to use faith (a form of belief) as a vehicle for thinking that a God or creator is real and exists.

Atheists tend to use untestable scientific theories (a 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 conlusions, hence they are both by definition delusional.

 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd

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.

Quote from: alancalverd

It's a scientific hypothesis: summative, predictive and disprovable. Show me one that isn't. 
     

Sorry Dr. Calverd, I didn't see the word "hypothetically" there anywhere, reads declaratively to me. Even as a hypothetical (defined as an untested proposed explanation) though, when it comes to arriving at any conclusive determination of fact as to whether or not there's a God or creator of some kind, even if you're right, can't help to support your thinking that.... "There is no God."     

Quote from: alancalverd
The evidence suggests that it wasn't.
Quote from: alancalverd
There is no observed phenomenon that requires a supernatural creator.

Agreed that there's no observed phenomenon requiring a God or creator, that's a given.
 
But as we discussed, if there is a God or creator of some kind, and if that God or creator were to have designed things in such a way as to not require it's constant attention, there wouldn't necessarily be any expectation of any observable phenomenon "requiring a God" following the completion of the creative process (e.g. the Big Bang) that would tend to indicate one way or the other in any convincing way whether or not there was a God or creator. That being the case, a distinct possibility would still exist, 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.
 
What you seem to be saying (presumably with a straight face) is that after very carefully observing the Pot over an extended period of time, science has conclusively determined (theoretically) that since there's no observed phenomenon occurring in or around the Pot requiring a Potter.... there is no Potter!

Quote from: alancalverd
It was your suggestion that the creator might have lost interest in his creation.

I actually didn't suggest anything, what I said was "there's nothing to suggest that a creator (or God) should have to continue on within the creation as a functional element." I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to whether or not a God or creator (if there is one) would or should be interested in its creation, in fact for all I know... it may not even be aware it created anything!

Quote from: alancalverd

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.


To hell with Einstein....
 
If either "active" theists or "active" atheists think they have conclusively determined that there either is or is not a God or creator, one must presume that they are irrational, or that they really think that they have enough data 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....

Theists tend to use faith (a form of belief) as a vehicle for thinking that a God or creator is real and exists.

Atheists tend to use untestable scientific theories (a 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 conlusions, hence they are both by definition self deluded.

 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd
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.
Quote from: alancalverd
It's a scientific hypothesis: summative, predictive and disprovable. Show me one that isn't. 

Sorry Dr. Calverd, I didn't see the word "hypothetically" there anywhere, reads declaratively to me. Even as a hypothetical (defined as an untested proposed explanation) though, when it comes to arriving at any conclusive determination of fact as to whether or not there's a God or creator of some kind, even if you're right, it can't help to support your thinking that.... "There is no God."     

Quote from: alancalverd
The evidence suggests that it wasn't.
Quote from: alancalverd
There is no observed phenomenon that requires a supernatural creator.

Agreed that there's no observed phenomenon requiring a God or creator, that's a given.
 
But as we discussed, if there is a God or creator of some kind, and if that God or creator were to have designed things in such a way as to not require constant or even periodic attention of any sort, there wouldn't necessarily be any expectation of any observable ongoing phenomenon "requiring a God" as a "functional" element of the universe following the completion of the creative process (e.g. the Big Bang) that would tend to indicate one way or the other in any convincing manner whether or not there was a God or creator.

That being 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.
 
What you seem to be saying (presumably with a straight face) is 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!

Quote from: alancalverd
It was your suggestion that the creator might have lost interest in his creation.

I actually didn't suggest that, what I said was "there's nothing to suggest that a creator (or God) should have to continue on within the creation as a functional element." I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to whether or not a God or creator (if there is one) would or should be interested in its creation, in fact for all I know.... it may not even be aware it created anything!

Quote from: alancalverd
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.

Even Einstein, when questioned about whether or not he believed in God had the good sense to remain noncommittal....   
 
"Your question about God is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no."

....because it's the logical choice, the scientific choice. My version of what you wrote above would go something like....
 
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....

Theists insist there's a God without having all the data needed to arrive at any conclusive determination of fact. They tend to use faith (a form of belief) as a vehicle for thinking that a God or creator is real and does exist.

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.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2014 04:04:27 by Aemilius »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Anyway, that's my opinion of the whole theist/atheist thing. I could continue to rephrase my position but I don't expect it would change your mind any more than I would expect it to change the mind of a Catholic Bishop.

Nice meeting you Bill S, and as always nice talking with you Dr. Calverd.... I look forward to our next collision! 
« Last Edit: 01/03/2014 08:10:55 by Aemilius »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Quote
Nice meeting you Bill S, and as always nice talking with you Dr. Calverd.... I look forward to our next collision!

Amen.   What else can one say after your post #25?

BTW, do you know how to tell a good nun from a bad nun?

It's by the way she says "Amen".
 

Online alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalvard


Quote
It all comes down to Occam in the end

Is it ironical that it all comes down to William of Ockham who was a Franciscan Friar?   


Quote
His work in this period became the subject of controversy, and Ockham was summoned before the Papal court of Avignon in 1324 under charges of heresy. During the Middle Ages, theologian Peter Lombard's Sentences (1150) had become a standard work of theology, and many ambitious theological scholars wrote commentaries on it.[5] William of Ockham was among these scholarly commentators. However, Ockham's commentary was not well received by his colleagues,[citation needed] or by the Church authorities. In 1324, his commentary was condemned as unorthodox by a synod of bishops[citation needed], and he was ordered to Avignon, France, to defend himself before a papal court.[5] For two years, he was confined to a Franciscan house,[citation needed] until he was condemned as a heretic in 1326.

My kind of guy.
 

Online alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Having said all that, I came across an interesting apologia for christianity this week. The suggestion is that science flourished in Europe because all the pioneers were steeped in a theology that said there must be some underlying rationale in the world, and we have a duty to try to understand "god's purpose and methods". 

I guess that fits with the development of classical physics, chemical analysis and synthesis, taxonomy and evolution, celestial mechanics etc but falls down when faced with quantum phenomena, the expanding universe, and the ultimate doom of entropy. It also provides a false foundation for a belief in "the laws of physics" as being immutable and universal directives rather than convenient mathematical summaries of common observation. Fact is that "the laws" are man-made descriptions of what is, not god-given rules for what must be, so if things don't appear to "obey" them, it's quite possible that our observations or summaries are at fault. IMHO it is atheism or at least rational skepticism that underpins quantum and relativistic physics.   
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Fact is that "the laws" are man-made descriptions of what is, not god-given rules for what must be, so if things don't appear to "obey" them, it's quite possible that our observations or summaries are at fault. IMHO it is atheism or at least rational skepticism that underpins quantum and relativistic physics.

That's not a fact, that's a belief. Rational skepticism (a.k.a. agnosticism) is a two way street, that's a fact. Delusory atheistic leanings suggest an irrational bias.... How can one know or even begin to speculate about whether or not the man made description of "The Laws" is based on "God given rules for what must be" if one cannot even prove one way or the other if a God exists?

Talk about putting the cart before the horse!
« Last Edit: 02/03/2014 23:10:43 by Aemilius »
 

Online alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
If the laws of physics were god-given, they wouldn't change as we investigate them - unless you are proposing a very mischievous god. Heavy objects fell faster than light ones until Galileo challenged Aristotle, and Newtonian gravity yielded to curved spacetime in the last century. Chances are that continuum gravity will be supplanted by quantum gravity in the next hundred years. But we have no reason to suppose that the universe is changing, only our understanding of it (i.e. the laws of physics).     
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Quote
But we have no reason to suppose that the universe is changing, only our understanding of it (i.e. the laws of physics).

Could it not be argued, with equal validity, that what we believe to be the "laws of physics" at any given point in history, are simply reflections of our understanding, and are, in themselves, not "laws" of any kind?

Thus, the "laws of physics"are not changing; only our understanding of them.       
 

Online alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
That is exactly my point. The laws of physics are entirely man-made. The notion that there may be an unchanging rationale behind everything in the universe is certainly attractive, but is not proven or necessary.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Quote
.....but is not proven or necessary.

Nor dis-proven. A bit like God, perhaps?  :)
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
God has been disproven, within the bounds of reason at least. You can't always prove that something undetectable doesn't exist, but when it depends on impossible qualities, you can then rule it out. God relies on impossible qualities.
 

Online alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
It is a well-known fact that the true god is made of pasta, but of a color and texture imperceptible to man. You can't disprove it, so it's one more to add to the infinite burden of the agnostic.
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
God has been disproven, within the bounds of reason at least. You can't always prove that something undetectable doesn't exist, but when it depends on impossible qualities, you can then rule it out. God relies on impossible qualities.

« Last Edit: 06/03/2014 22:13:16 by Aemilius »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
It is a well-known fact that the true god is made of pasta, but of a color and texture imperceptible to man. You can't disprove it, so it's one more to add to the infinite burden of the agnostic.

« Last Edit: 06/03/2014 22:08:19 by Aemilius »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Just having a bit of fun there, but really, it does sum up my opinion of the those two posts at the same time.... kind of a reverse Rorschach thing.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2014 21:28:01 by Aemilius »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
This explosive gas can't burn. This floating thing full of air can't sink if you replace the air with water. Don't mix up claims of this kind by people trying to sell their technology with other claims based on the precise application of reason.

If I propose that there exists a thing which has non-existence as one of its essential properties, that proposed thing cannot exist. If I propose that there may exist a thing which cannot be detected, that thing might exist. The second of these examples cannot be used to show that God might exist, because God is like the former case - he has impossible qualities which render him non-existent.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: DC
God is like the former case - he has impossible qualities which render him non-existent.

How could you know what qualities God might have when you have do definition of God that is not simply someone's opinion?

Of course, you may have a preternatural source of information; I certainly can't prove that you have not; but don't expect me to believe that you have.  :)
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
There is an infinite range of possible/impossible things that could be called God, but each one is really a distinct idea that ought to be given a unique label to represent it instead of them all sharing the same word. Most of these concepts are not in the least bit interesting as they have no properties of any kind worthy of the word God, and while some of those uninteresting ideas labelled as "God" could exist, they are not a "God" in any sense that's worth arguing about - there could be a universe out there filled by a giant kettle, for example, and someone might declare it to be a "God", so that kind of "God" really could exist, but it isn't a God in the sense that we're interested in here any more than a piece of coprolite is a God. That it is possible for something uninteresting to be called a God and for that thing to exist is not a justification for saying that everything else labelled as a God cannot be disproved. Each case has to be assessed on its own merits.

So, what kinds of God are actually relevant? Clearly it's the ones relating to the big religions and which have extraordinary claims attached to them. In Buddhism there is no God, but there can be ordinary items looked on as gods which people worship for some reason - I don't know what that's about but I don't see any interesting claims being made about these "gods", so it looks like worship of a giant kettle, only with a small kettle or other object whose existence is less disputed than the one that can't be detected.

No, the Gods that are of interest here are the ones to which big claims have been attached, such as being supernatural, all-knowing, and creators of everything. These are the three big claims, and if you take these properties away from a God, you turn them into something more like the giant kettle, or like a natural being such as a human, rendering them holy unexciting [wholly].

A creator of everything falls straight into an impossibility trap - it can't create itself or the powers by which it creates things.

An all-knowing God would have to understand every aspect of the mechanisms by which he functions, so he will see the truth of what he is: a very ordinary being which does nothing special. This leaves no room for him to be supernatural. If he wants to be supernatural, he has to run on magic, breaking the laws of nature, but by doing so he loses the ability to understand mechanistically how he functions, so he ends up being an ignorant being running on a magic he doesn't understand.

The idea of magic itself is a nonsense though, because it has to have some kind of mechanism to enable it to behave consistently. There can be no such thing as magic. If you don't like the idea of equating the supernatural with magic, that won't help you either because the idea of a supernatural not being natural is also nonsense - if the two things can interact, they are necessarily part of the self-same system and the proposed distinction between them is incompetent.

What could exist then while coming as close as possible to having those qualifications? The answer is this: a natural being/machine which evolved into an intelligent form and which worked out everything about reality that can be worked out about that reality. There may be all manner of things about that reality that cannot be worked out by it, and it is impossible for it to know whether it has worked out everything even if it has theories which account perfectly for everything it can measure.

In other words, the closest thing to a God would be the most knowledgeable natural being in existence or more likely the most advanced AGI system (if there's one out there that's more advanced than any natural being). Either way, that's no God.
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
To seriously entertain the notion that such an absurd credulity straining line of reasoning like that above (cobbled together as it is from odd scraps of unsupported assertions, opinion, speculation and assumptions) could actually lead to any kind of conclusive determination of fact is the very definition of self delusion
« Last Edit: 12/03/2014 04:52:59 by Aemilius »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
I've taken the main attributes of God and shown that they don't work. Other ideas of "God" are clearly unaffected, but they are not ideas of any kind of God a major religion tries to push. The fact that something of no significance labelled as a God could still exist gives no support whatsoever to the idea that a God of the kind most religious people regard as a God can exist. The kinds of God pushed by major religions clearly cannot exist and I've shown you why. If you are capable of pointing to an actual flaw in my argument, please do so. Just waving at it and saying it's wrong doesn't hack it.

What I've given you is just a summery of an argument which could stretch to many tens of thousands of words, but I see no point in going through the whole lot in one go up front. I've given enough for anyone with a good mind to be able to see the big picture. Those who are bright will rapidly fill in all the obvious gaps for themselves and recognise that the whole argument is sound. Those who lack that ability will just see the gaps and not know how to fill them in. Some will, of course, not even try because they don't want to know that God is impossible.
« Last Edit: 12/03/2014 22:09:42 by David Cooper »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums