....it seems you are saying that the only scientific response to the concept of "God" is that of the agnostic.
The problem with god is that every definition turns out to be contradictory to observation
Possibly the most damaging kind is the delusion that one is inherently incapable of making a simple decision. Agnostics are to be pitied, not hated.
Self-delusion is about inventing the unnecessary - quite the opposite of reductionism.
Presumably you have scientific proof for your belief, otherwise, your "simple decision" is just a matter of personal preference, or self deception.I'm a scientist: I'm paid not to believe anything. I fly around the country to work with ionising radiation and sick animals: belief can be fatal - just read the accident reports.
Why would you pity someone who does not need to protect himself/herself with false certainties of any kind?I don't. I just pity those who hedge their bets because they can't choose whether to accept the evidence of their own eyes or the nonsense that others peddle.
An agnostic, on the other hand, logically recognizes the folly of committing to any conclusive determination of fact arrived at without having all the needed data.
Every definition of a functional god is either ridiculous or immediately disprovable.
I'm a scientist: I'm paid not to believe anything. I fly around the country to work with ionising radiation and sick animals: belief can be fatal - just read the accident reports.
Every definition of a functional god is either ridiculous or immediately disprovable.
How much data do you need?
If anyone had come up with a valid definition of a god, all others would have fallen by the wayside and there would be no mystery in theology.
That would be a valid argument if you had studied every definition there has ever been. Perhaps you have? Otherwise it is just an opinion based on partial evidence.
It sounds as though your work is laudable and of great value, but introducing it into this discussion suggests a disappointing lack of relevant arguments. It's a bit like pulling rank, I feel sure you can do better than that.Not pulling rank, just pointing out that, according to the accident reports, belief is never justified and always potentially dangerous.
Nothing but opinion. There's nothing to suggest that a creator (or God) should have to continue on within the creation as a functional element any more than one should expect a potter to continue on within the pot as a functional element.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. The evidence suggests that it wasn't.
In view of the very real possibility that the creator may not actually be (or ever have been) within or even observably connected to the creation, even having all the data about the universe may not be sufficient to enable any questioner to arrive at a conclusive determination of fact.A creator unconnected with its creation? Something of an oxymoron, surely!
A creator unconnected with its creation? Something of an oxymoron, surely!
If anyone had come up with a valid definition of a god
Logically this must include your definition of god. Does this mean you are basing your seemingly prejudiced opinion on an invalid definition? Would it not be reasonable to expect more of a scientist?I haven't attempted a personal definition of anything supernatural. I can point to anything natural. But you seem to have missed the point: one valid definition or unequivocal demonstration of something that actually exists or existed would make all other gods, and hence most religions, redundant and invalid.
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.
The evidence suggests that it wasn't.
Once a potter has made a pot and either given up pottery, or died, or in some other way discontinued his relationship with his creation, there is clearly no point in asking him to alter it, or even attempting to discuss pottery with him.
But theists spend a lot of time asking their gods to alter or explain the universe, or doing something to please or placate them, so clearly everyone who invents a god, invests his fantasy with some continuing functionality.
It's a scientific hypothesis: summative, predictive and disprovable. Show me one that isn't.
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.
That's quite an assertion Dr. Calverd.... Can you prove it? If you can't, then it must be a delusional belief masquerading as a substantiated declarative statement stemming from a determination of fact arrived at without having all the needed data.
Observation. There is no observed phenomenon that requires a supernatural creator.
The evidence suggests that it wasn't.
And what evidence is that?
It was your suggestion that the creator might have lost interest in his creation.
Once a potter has made a pot and either given up pottery, or died, or in some other way discontinued his relationship with his creation, there is clearly no point in asking him to alter it, or even attempting to discuss pottery with him.
One can't even say that with any certainty. In this case, if there is a creator that we are as yet unable to either define or detect.... How could one presume to know how, whether or to what degree it may or may not be capable of interacting with it's creation? Another delusional belief masquerading as a substantiated declarative statement stemming from a determination of fact arrived at without having all the needed data.
Not the point. 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.
But theists spend a lot of time asking their gods to alter or explain the universe, or doing something to please or placate them, so clearly everyone who invents a god, invests his fantasy with some continuing functionality.
When it comes to knowing whether or not some kind of God exists, or even defining what that might be.... How do you see focussing on what theists do or don't do as lending any credibility to your determination of fact (e.g. "There is no God.") arrived at without having all the needed data?
I haven't attempted a personal definition of anything supernatural.
It all comes down to Occam in the end
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.
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: alancalverdThe evidence suggests that it wasn't.Quote from: alancalverdThere 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: alancalverdIt 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."
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: alancalverdThe evidence suggests that it wasn't.Quote from: alancalverdThere 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: alancalverdIt 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."
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: alancalverdThe evidence suggests that it wasn't.Quote from: alancalverdThere 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: alancalverdIt 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.
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: alancalverdThe evidence suggests that it wasn't.Quote from: alancalverdThere 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: alancalverdIt 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.
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.
Nice meeting you Bill S, and as always nice talking with you Dr. Calverd.... I look forward to our next collision!
Quote from: alancalvardQuoteIt 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?
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.
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.
But we have no reason to suppose that the universe is changing, only our understanding of it (i.e. the laws of physics).
.....but is not proven or necessary.
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.
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.
God is like the former case - he has impossible qualities which render him non-existent.
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….
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.
Back to Occam!
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!
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.
...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.
A "God" who believes he is God is also deluded, because he cannot possibly know if he is God.
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.
Quote from: DavidI'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.QuoteThose 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. :)
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.
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.
QuoteA "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.
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.
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.
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.and that's just crap too. 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".
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".
Aemilius, it seems you are saying that the only scientific response to the concept of "God" is that of the agnostic. I would go with that.Bill S, good to meet you here. I assume you the same one I know at SAGG?
In my experience, most objections to God turn out to be objections to religious beliefs and practices. Many of these objections are well founded, but some are based on ignorance/prejudice. Few, if any, say anything about God, certainly nothing with the scientific validity of a simple "I don't know". Why does that seem to be such a difficult thing for some people to say?
[size:14pt]THIS IS GOD. I WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT I DO NOT EXIST. THE ATHEISTS ARE RIGHT ALL ALONG. SO THERE !!!WHAT'S THAT! Am I hearing things? Or is this dream? O well, I'll make a response and see what happens:
[/size]
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.
….and then the intelligence of the listener should be able to do the rest,
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.
you have to add a God-property of some kind to it, and it's only necessary to attack that property to disprove it.
and that's just crap
Bill S, good to meet you here. I assume you the same one I know at SAGG?
Okay, so we are now part of God, and that means we are going to want to worship ourself...
Quote from: alancalverdand that's just crap
and that's just an opinion.
It's an interesting response, redolent of those sad schoolyard arguments in which one party runs out of relevant responses and takes the first step towards an exchange of insults. Not going down that path, thanks.
Just an idea.... I'm visualizing something like a hologram infinitely/near infinitely shattered by the Big Bang as a possible analogy/example of a way to approach that, at least informationally, where not only would the one thing a contain all distinct things A, or (A-a), but also where the all the distinct things A would contain the one thing a, or (a-A).
That approach would at least seem to point in the direction of something like what Bill S is suggesting.... that, at least informationally, the cosmos (a) contains all distinct things (a-A), and also that all distinct things (A) contain the cosmos (A-a).
In the absence of a large brown animal that turns grass into milk, there is no cow.
Quote from: DCCreating 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.
This sounds good, but you are still trying to confine your concept of god to the 3+1 dimensions of spacetime. You have no way of knowing if, outside that, the same rules, such as causality or linearity, apply. They may, or they may not.
Quote from: DC….and then the intelligence of the listener should be able to do the rest,
Isn’t that tantamount to saying: if you don’t agree with me, you lack intelligence?
QuoteMy 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.
AGI is obviously your thing, so you would be able to tell me if I am wrong in thinking that even AGI would have to base its reasoning on available information. Beyond that would be only speculation.
Quoteyou have to add a God-property of some kind to it, and it's only necessary to attack that property to disprove it.
True, but at best you only disprove that particular god concept.
As far as I can see, no one has given a definition of God that was not derived from the imaginations of people. Nor has anyone provided an argument that did not restrict God to the rules of causality/linearity of our observable Universe. Probably someone will point out that this is not possible; but that, to some extent is the point. It is not possible to provide such a definition, and without that it is not possible to rule out every possible god concept.
Quot hominess, tot sententiae. How dull life would be otherwise.
There are many highly destructive kinds of belief which should, for the well-being of all, be done away with.
Wrong premise, Bill. The essence of atheism is no belief, subtly different from belief in nonexistence. Belief is acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of evidence. Atheists have no need of the hypothesis.
It could equally well be said that atheists believe they have evidence that God does not exist.
You can only prove the nonexistence of something if you have a consistent definition of it. So far, nobody has offered me a definition of a god that stands up to scrutiny..
Quote from: DCThere are many highly destructive kinds of belief which should, for the well-being of all, be done away with.
I strongly agree, but let’s put the blame in the right place. It’s people who have these destructive ideas, and fashion their “gods” in such a way as to support their ideas.
Part of my interest in the beliefs of atheists and the possible proof of the non-existence of God is linked to questions about what it might be scientifically acceptable to infer about anything that could be beyond the Universe, given that our experience/observations must be restricted to the Universe.
It fascinates me that as a scientist you are able to draw so many conclusions about God, when it seems that it is scientifically unacceptable to claim that there can never have been absolutely nothing. Where do you stand on that?
Perhaps all three groups can be said to be characteristic beliefs.
Theistic belief: There is a God.
Atheistic belief: There is no God.
Agnostic belief: I lack the evidence to say if God exists, and the conceit to claim that I know.
No definition = no existence.
We rational beings only assume the existence of things that are defined by observed properties. And quite often (bogeymen, phlogiston...) we later prove their nonexistence because the observation turns out to have a better explanation.
Otherwise why stop at god? Why don't you assume the existence of zzy or any other combination of letters? According to your logic, the fact that I can't assign any properties to zzy doesn't preclude its existence. As I said earlier, this approach to language stinks of philosophy and is therefore of no possible use or interest.
We rational beings only assume the existence of things that are defined by observed properties. And quite often (bogeymen, phlogiston...) we later prove their nonexistence because the observation turns out to have a better explanation.
As I said earlier, this approach to language stinks of philosophy and is therefore of no possible use or interest.
There are scientists who believe in God.
There are scientists who believe there is no God.
There are scientists who believe that we do not have enough evidence to rule out the possibility of God.