The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: God , Church , pedophilia , anti-homosexuality , Međugorje scam  (Read 20515 times)

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
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.  :) 
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
because you can shoot down all the humanly devised ideas of God that you know about, that must prove that God does not exist.
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!         
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote
Back to Occam!

Ockham's Razor provides a valuable guide, not a proof/disproof of anything.

 
 

Offline Aemilius

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

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!


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.
« Last Edit: 13/03/2014 04:04:58 by Aemilius »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
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.

Creating something out of nothing will either depend on a mechanism or on magic. If the latter, then it is not something that God can understand - understanding something automatically requires it to be mechanistic. If it's mechanistic, then God is not doing anything special by making anything - he is just like a child playing with Lego, even if he can make blocks appear out of nothing. But the real issue with creation is how he himself came to exist and to how he can avoid being just an ordinary evolved creature which started out with no knowledge and next to no functionality and gradually developed, steered by the environment in which he just happens to exist. A God who has always existed and who has always been all knowing and perfect is a God who did not create any of that knowledge or capability - it was all handed to him by magic. He did not create the realm in which he exists either, so there can be nothing about what he is that he can take any pride in: it was none of his doing. He cannot be stupid enough to think that he is a God in the sense of "creator of all things", beceause he has not come up with a single idea that wasn't essentially already there within himself.

Quote
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.     

I take my definition of God from the holy books that define him. He is the creator of all things, he knows and understands everything, and he is not an inferior natural creature like us, which is why we must look up to him (and worship him as something inherently superior). These definitions don't define a possible God, and when you strip these qualities away from him you are left with a natural being who is only superior to us in the sense that he has by luck of position access to levers of power at a higher level than we do. He is in no better position to claim to be God than I would be if I created a virtual world and wired everyone else into it such that they can only act within that virtual space while I can interfere with everything that goes on and make "magical" events take place which are in reality just little tricks. The people seeing everything from inside the virtual world would, if they are taken in by it all, see me as God, but I obviously wouldn't. "God" wouldn't see himself as God for exactly the same reason - he is not so stupid as to imagine that luck of position gives him a higher inherent status.

These attempts of God to explain what he is (through religion) don't work at all, but maybe that only shows that they're all false and don't come from him. There is still room for him to have some other quality which he cannot explain to us because we are incapable of understanding it, and if this is the case he would see no more point in trying to explain it to us that we would see the point in trying to discuss calculus with cattle. This means he can be inherently superior to us in ways that we are incapable of discussing. However, he is in the same boat - there can always be another God in a superior position to him which he knows nothing of and is incapable of understanding, so he cannot know that he is God. Whatever kind of logic he has access to to decide whether he is the top God or not is subject to the possibility that there is a superior level of reasoning which breaks the rules he is using. He could bypass this problem by having magical knowledge that there can be no higher level, but magical knowledge cannot be understood by him without the magic breaking, at which point he's relying on mechanistic reasoning which can always be trumped by a higher level.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
...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.

Those who believe that something impossible can exist are deluded. A "God" who believes he is God is also deluded, because he cannot possibly know if he is God.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
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.

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.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
So you are arguing for the impossibility of knowing whether something exists or not, if it can't be defined. Too many assumptions. Back to Occam.
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Looks like a post by Bill S which had followed post 49, along with the next post after it by Dr. Calverd, along with my response to Dr. Calverds post (quoted by David Cooper in post 50) has been removed. Where did those three posts go?
« Last Edit: 13/03/2014 23:23:14 by Aemilius »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote
So you are arguing for the impossibility of knowing whether something exists or not, if it can't be defined

Where did I say that?

Quote
Too many assumptions. Back to Occam.

"What I tell you three times is true".  This may suffice for Lewis Carroll's Bellman, but surely one can expect better than mechanical repetition from a scientist.
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Now I see that in addition to the post by Bill S which I believe had followed post 49, along with the next post after it by Dr. Calverd and my response that followed Dr. Calverds post (quoted by David Cooper in post 50) have been removed.... and that my post 26 repeats four times, appearing now as posts 27, 28, 29 and 30 too.
« Last Edit: 14/03/2014 18:02:40 by Aemilius »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
The forum hit a technical problem the other day, so data loss must have resulted. I use Clipboard Magic on my machine which means that anything I highlight and copy to the normal clipboard gets saved elsewhere for some time. As a result, I have some of the missing material there. This first post is by Bill S:-

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.  :) 

 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
This next post is mine:-

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.

Creating something out of nothing will either depend on a mechanism or on magic. If the latter, then it is not something that God can understand - understanding something automatically requires it to be mechanistic. If it's mechanistic, then God is not doing anything special by making anything - he is just like a child playing with Lego, even if he can make blocks appear out of nothing. But the real issue with creation is how he himself came to exist and to how he can avoid being just an ordinary evolved creature which started out with no knowledge and next to no functionality and gradually developed, steered by the environment in which he just happens to exist. A God who has always existed and who has always been all knowing and perfect is a God who did not create any of that knowledge or capability - it was all handed to him by magic. He did not create the realm in which he exists either, so there can be nothing about what he is that he can take any pride in: it was none of his doing. He cannot be stupid enough to think that he is a God in the sense of "creator of all things", beceause he has not come up with a single idea that wasn't essentially already there within himself.

Quote
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.     

I take my definition of God from the holy books that define him. He is the creator of all things, he knows and understands everything, and he is not an inferior natural creature like us, which is why we must look up to him (and worship him as something inherently superior). These definitions don't define a possible God, and when you strip these qualities away from him you are left with a natural being who is only superior to us in the sense that he has by luck of position access to levers of power at a higher level than we do. He is in no better position to claim to be God than I would be if I created a virtual world and wired everyone else into it such that they can only act within that virtual space while I can interfere with everything that goes on and make "magical" events take place which are in reality just little tricks. The people seeing everything from inside the virtual world would, if they are taken in by it all, see me as God, but I obviously wouldn't. "God" wouldn't see himself as God for exactly the same reason - he is not so stupid as to imagine that luck of position gives him a higher inherent status.

These attempts of God to explain what he is (through religion) don't work at all, but maybe that only shows that they're all false and don't come from him. There is still room for him to have some other quality which he cannot explain to us because we are incapable of understanding it, and if this is the case he would see no more point in trying to explain it to us that we would see the point in trying to discuss calculus with cattle. This means he can be inherently superior to us in ways that we are incapable of discussing. However, he is in the same boat - there can always be another God in a superior position to him which he knows nothing of and is incapable of understanding, so he cannot know that he is God. Whatever kind of logic he has access to to decide whether he is the top God or not is subject to the possibility that there is a superior level of reasoning which breaks the rules he is using. He could bypass this problem by having magical knowledge that there can be no higher level, but magical knowledge cannot be understood by him without the magic breaking, at which point he's relying on mechanistic reasoning which can always be trumped by a higher level.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Then the last one I have is this one by Aemilius:-


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!


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.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
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.

I used the indefinite article up front because while that "God" may believe itself to be God (without need of any article), it is not competent to make that assessment - there can always be a higher level which it cannot know of where the real God might reside, thereby destroying the status of the lesser creature which out of delusion wrongly believes itself to be God.

Quote
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.

No, it works on the basis that a God could be possible, and then that leads to the realisation that that God can not be identified by itself, at which point no God can know that it is God, thereby disqualifying the whole lot of them.
 

Offline Aemilius

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

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" in that first quote, read as declarative 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 to begin with.

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: 14/03/2014 18:48:48 by Aemilius »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
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.

No, I said tens of thousands of words, but that's only needed to fill in all the obvious gaps which people should be able to cover by thinking for themselves. All that should be needed are the simple arguments I've already put forward, and then the intelligence of the listener should be able to do the rest, if their thinking isn't too shackled by their existing beliefs. I too used to believe that it was impossible to disprove God (lack of evidence certainly can't rule him out), but was forced to shift from that position when I found that there was no possible way to allow one to exist.

Quote
Even Einstein, when questioned about whether or not he believed in God had the good sense to remain noncommittal....

Ironic that you call on moral support from someone who decided that the aether can't exist because it can't be detected.
 
Quote
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....

Ironic too that while he thought out relativity by imagining he was riding a beam of light, he couldn't try riding a God to see if God worked. Had he done so, he would have realised that God would not be able to determine that he was God and would therefore fall short of qualifying to be God. If he happens to be God only because there is no higher being at a level above (which cannot be detected unless it wants to reveal itself), whatever else about him that might qualify him for being God is shown to be worth precisely nothing as soon as a higher God is revealed. His God status is dependent 100% on something that may or may not exist and which he cannot know the truth of. Whether there is a higher level or not makes no change to what he actually is, so it is a holy worthless status.

Quote
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.

He hasn't considered logical arguments which can rule out the possibility of an impossible thing existing. Shoddy work.

Quote
The two positions are both similarly founded on an inherently flawed line of belief based reasoning leading to oppositely extreme equally irrational delusory conclusions.

My position came out of working on AGI, looking for mechanistic ways to apply reasoning to all things. Soon, every AGI system will be pushing the same arguments about the impossibility of God.
« Last Edit: 14/03/2014 20:01:16 by David Cooper »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
It does seem that those who determinedly hold to the belief that they can scientifically disprove the existence of God, hold equally determinedly to standard religious definitions of God. 

Andrei Linde said: “…the central idea of modern cosmology – that it must be possible to understand the entire Universe through one ultimate Theory of Everything – is an outgrowth of belief in one God.  Thus cosmology has itself become a sort of religious quest: a search for ‘God’ in the form of an equation.” 

Perhaps we should look outside religions for a broader concept of God.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
If you don't stick to actual definitions of God, you aren't discussing God. Attempting to put an equation to everything is not a search for God, but a starting point on the road to understanding the mechanism behind all that exists - we could have that entire thing without God getting a look in. Looking for a broader concept of God by applying the word to things that aren't God is not the right approach. If you call the universe God, then by that definition you have a God, but it's not God in any sense I'm interested in: we already have the word "universe" to describe the universe, and no one's saying the universe can't exist. Clue: an atheist is not someone who believes the universe doesn't exist.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote
If 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?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Perhaps 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. 

In the absence of a large brown animal that turns grass into milk, there is no cow.
« Last Edit: 16/03/2014 07:50:16 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Perhaps 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.


The only thing that stinks around here is the mental flatulence that passes for critical thinking.


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. 


Still insisting the pot doesn't show signs of needing a Potter so there isn't one and never was.... eh? Doesn't make any more sense than the theist who insists the pot does show signs of needing a Potter so there is one and always was! Why is that such a difficult concept? 

A perfectly valid hypothetical I've pointed out several times now is that if there's a God or creator of some kind that 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 phenomenon "requiring a God" in 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 to begin with.

In that case, there would simply never be any observable phenomenon within the universe that could be used to formulate any testable hypothesis indicating one way or the other with any certainty whether a God or creator exists.

There's only one correct answer to the question of whether or not there's a God or creator of some kind, it's.... I don't know, I don't have all the data and likely never will.

When it comes to which is right, Theism or Atheism, it's a bit like Tic-Tac-Toe really....

The only way to win the game is not to play!

« Last Edit: 16/03/2014 14:28:30 by Aemilius »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: David
If 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.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Aemilius, you know we are on to a looser here, don't you?

To a theist, any amount of logic will only be seen as an attempt to "explain away" God, and will have no influence.

It seems that atheists might have the same mindset.  The main difference is that atheists tend to believe that their logic provides proof. 
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Quote
If 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?

No. "Actual definitions of God" merely restricts us to things that have some kind of relevance to the idea of God. It is not enough to point to something that we know exists (or even to something that might exist) and claim that it is God - you have to add a God-property of some kind to it, and it's only necessary to attack that property to disprove it.

If you provide information about any proposed God-property, you make it very easy to disprove, so the game you have to play is to refuse to provide any information about it or to claim that it's beyond description because we're mentally incapable of understanding it, but I've already shown you that this fails. Any possible property that would make something God is going to be something which cannot be known to be a property of the thing proposed to be God, even by that thing that stupidly imagines itself to be God - there may be another thing out there which it can't detect which has superior claim to have the property that it is God, so the result of this is that the property of being God is both arbitrary and worthless. One of the stupid things that thinks it is God may by luck actually be the thing best placed to attach that claim to itself because there happens not to be a better candidate in existence, but the claim is hollow because there is no substance to the property. All it is is a label of superiority: I'm better than all the rest of you because there's nothing better than me, and I'm better because I happen by luck to have this empty property to boast about. Except that it would be foolish for anything to make that claim as it cannot know if it has that property or not. So, all these things that consider the possibility that they might be God will actually think the same thing: I'm not God, and even if by chance I have this "God"-property, it makes no practical difference to what I am and is therefore worthless - I am just the same with it as without it.

By the way, it would be possible for any one of us to have this "God"-property and not know it, and everything out there that's stupid enough to think that it's God may, for all it knows, be inferior to us. This is why belief that there could be a God is nothing more than a delusion. It is extraordinary that anyone still gives the idea of God the time of day. Sort out your thinking and move on.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length