God , Church , pedophilia , anti-homosexuality , Međugorje scam

  • 101 Replies
  • 21088 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline stalkingcockroach

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile

What is religion , do you understand that ?

All world's newspapers are writing about pedophilia scandals by catholic church .
 If Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill becomes law, the chief executive of the country's main gay rights group could face life imprisonment. That is nothing new
just public opinion has never known the truth about church . Thanks to internet we can find out the truth.

What you think if priests really believe in God ? I do not think they believe in God by themselves or if they believe
what is that religion actually and how is that ?


Catholic church is anti gay and for moral but the great majority of people think that priest are homosexuals .

They are just incredible many scandals coming from the church ( homosexuality , pedophilia , crime , corruption ,
pregnant nuns ) , protestant bishops  in Sweden are lesbians on the other side Catholic church is accused for mass
pedophilia . Do they believe in God and how is that actually ?

========== What is religion and how did they created "thing"?

How do they create religion ? What are the scientific facts about religion ?
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”

Einstein



======= Hate Crimes and Religious Intolerance

Hate crimes are defined by federal law as criminal acts motived by an assailant’s prejudice against the victim’s religion, race, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation.  The FBI reports that religious intolerance accounts for about 20% of hate crimes reported by law enforcement authorities across the nation.



======= Schizophrenia
In a study of patients with schizophrenia that had been previously admitted to a hospital, 24% had had religious delusions.[8] This has led some researchers to question whether schizophrenia leads an individual to become more religious, or if intense religiosity leads to schizophrenia.






======= Exorcism crime by church , just one example

Exorcism in Romania ends in death

She was treated for schizophrenia, but when she relapsed, a monk and four nuns tried a different method: exorcism.



======= No , they did not stopped that , they make a new thing and catholic church is making "thing"

But they do it now again and we can follow it . Really a huge thing for Catholic church , a new big place for pilgrimage
Međugorje scam .

Clear bluff and scam , could give evidence for how they created religion.
You can find their website and read all about it :

Something like this :

- it always starts with some uneducated people in some small village
- Virgin or Jesus speaks to them
- Virgin promises heaven or punishment with hell
- he makes deeply religions people scared
- Virgin make a big promises , you can find it under (  Međugorje Virgin Mary 10 secrets)
- church joining the game , collecting money
- they make business on it
- Vatican see possibility to become big and join if it can make a profit on it
- The success , sell scam to uneducated und religious folk ( some people just need religion and they sell it to them )



Is religion something more than this?
I have never seen more then this.

 Is that not stupid to support religion just to give all free  to few dirty bustards ?

 Or maybe you can see that some people find a trust in religion and maybe that is good , great percentage
hope to see again some person they loved again in heaven .

 Do we have to support religion just because we can not tell to some person : " Sorry you are never going to see again
your loved person again and death is just a end for everything ."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Good deeds do not need supernatural justification. Therefore the purpose of religion is to justify or excuse evil. The one thing all religions have in common is that they teach their followers to despise, shun, pity, denigrate or murder people who don't share their beliefs.  The world will be a better place when it is free from religion. Ignorance is excusable, faith is not.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
"....God is a term for an existence imagined by man in terms of his own personality and irreducible to any tenable definition."
John MacKinnon Robertson
« Last Edit: 19/02/2014 03:40:07 by Aemilius »

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Which, by the way, does not preclude the existence of some kind of "God". It only indicates that we, as of yet, are unable to either detect or define what that is, or what, if any, its mechanism of operation might be. We don't have all the data, and likely never will.... making any speculation/conjecture useless really. 

That's what at least one old eighth grade dropout would've expected a real Physicist to say!   
« Last Edit: 19/02/2014 05:19:41 by Aemilius »

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
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.

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?   

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
....it seems you are saying that the only scientific response to the concept of "God" is that of the agnostic. 

Exactly.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2014 09:17:21 by Aemilius »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The problem with god is that every definition turns out to be contradictory to observation. Buddhism manages without a god, which is a step in the right direction, but why bother with any sort of mysticism? At best, it's a sign of intellectual cowardice. Not that I could call Buddhists or Quakers cowards, but standing up for the right thing to do shouldn't require an appeal to the irrational.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Quote
The problem with god is that every definition turns out to be contradictory to observation

Surely that is not a problem with God, it is a problem with people who believe they can define God rather than have the courage to admit that they don't know.  This must apply equally to theists and atheists.  The former try to define God to prove the concept, the latter would have to define God to have any hope of disproving the concept.

Everybody hates an agnostic. :)

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
And both, the theist and the atheist, are therefore equally self-deluded.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2014 23:07:12 by Aemilius »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Self-delusion is about inventing the unnecessary - quite the opposite of reductionism. 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.

We use words to convey meaning. If you can't define a word by example or by attribute, it has no meaning. The word god has no consistent meaning because it has no attributes consistent with observation. Occam rules.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Quote
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.

There is also a big difference between knowing and thinking you know.  Presumably you have scientific proof for your belief, otherwise, your "simple decision" is just a matter of personal preference, or self deception.  Why would you pity someone who does not need to protect himself/herself with false certainties of any kind? 

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Self-delusion is about inventing the unnecessary - quite the opposite of reductionism.

No it's not. Self delusion is about tricking or deceiving oneself into believing something without having all the data needed to arrive at any conclusive determination of fact.

Theists insist there's a God without having all the data needed to arrive at any conclusive determination of fact.

Atheists insist there's no God without having all the data needed to arrive at any conclusive determination of fact.
 
Anyone who continues to insist they've reached a conclusive determination of fact without having all the data needed to do so is by definition self deluded.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2014 07:41:53 by Aemilius »

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Another thing atheists share with theists, in addition to habitually insisting on the factuality of unsupported conclusive determinations of fact, is the tendency to denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with them. Dr. Calverd actually provides an excellent example. First he says all religions teach their followers (among other things) to pity people who don't share their beliefs, and then he as an atheist goes on to employ the same revolting tactic, declaring that agnostics (and likely anyone else who disagrees with him) should be pitied because they don't share his beliefs!

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.

Theism and atheism are really just two sides of the same worthless coin. 
« Last Edit: 24/02/2014 08:30:15 by Aemilius »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
  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.

The "simple decision" is either to note that there is no robust, predictive and experimentally disprovable hypothesis that requires a god, and plenty of evidence that every god hypothesis that has been posited has failed;  or to ignore the facts and believe in whatever fantasy justifies your evildoing. But don't expect me to accept it as an excuse.

Quote
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. 

« Last Edit: 24/02/2014 12:32:18 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
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.

How much data do you need? Every definition of a functional god is either ridiculous or immediately disprovable. 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Quote
Every definition of a functional god is either ridiculous or immediately disprovable.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
Every definition of a functional god is either ridiculous or immediately disprovable.

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.

How much data do you need? 

I don't know.... and clearly neither do you. 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.
 
« Last Edit: 24/02/2014 22:47:46 by Aemilius »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

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.
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.

Quote
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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
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.

Mind you, it's a useful analogy. 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.   

Quote
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! 
« Last Edit: 24/02/2014 23:29:38 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Quote
A creator unconnected with its creation? Something of an oxymoron, surely!

There seems to be a widespread assumption that the definition of god should include the role of creator, and that "god" should be preceded by the definite article.  Those who impose such limitations on their thinking are inviting narrow thinking and prejudice.   

Quote
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?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • View Profile
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.       

The evidence suggests that it wasn't.

And what evidence is that?

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.

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?
« Last Edit: 26/02/2014 12:17:17 by Aemilius »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
I've stayed out of this thread because the title looks unnecessarily insulting to religious people (who do not all deserve to be branded as paedophiles), but there is no logical room for God. If he understands how everything works, there's nothing special about him to justify giving himself the title of God because he's just an ordinary natural being doing ordinary things who just happens to have access to all the levers of power which he makes sure no one else can reach. For him to be special, he would need to be supernatural, but that would require him to be magic; inexplicable even to himself, at which point he again loses the right to the title of God because God would have to understand everything. By understanding everything he necessarily renders himself ordinary and realises that he cannot be a God. There is no God - he is just a fantasy idea; a superhero for adults to cling to whenever they feel small.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

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

Quote

The evidence suggests that it wasn't.


And what evidence is that?
Observation. There is no observed phenomenon that requires a supernatural creator.

Quote

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.
It was your suggestion that the creator might have lost interest in his creation.

Quote

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?
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.

As for "all the needed data" you usually don't need much to disprove a disprovable hypothesis.  We infer existence from the influence that objects have on their environment. So we know that there is an elephant in the room because the furniture is broken and there is a pile of elephant dung on the floor. The absence of either suggests no elephant. So what observed effect does any god have, that cannot be explained by other means that are consistent with a wholly atheistic universe?

It all comes down to Occam in the end. 
« Last Edit: 25/02/2014 19:34:38 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalvard
I haven't attempted a personal definition of anything supernatural.

This just brings us back to the fact that you are, on your own admission, denying the existence of something you have not attempted to define.

You say I have missed the point.  I disagree.  I have no quarrel with you, or anyone else expressing belief or disbelief in God, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, or any mythical figure you might care to name.

I freely accept that there are aspects of various definitions of God that might be amenable to scientific investigation, but I think it is important to distinguish between God, religion and various definitions of God, which cannot be more than people’s opinions.

What I take issue with is the pretence that the question can be solved scientifically. 

Where the religious beliefs of people, especially people with influence, interfere with scientific progress, I believe scientists have a right, possibly a duty, to defend their corner.  However, I think it is only common sense to recognise what one is fighting against.  The “enemy” is ignorance and prejudice, not some concept that cannot adequately be defined. 

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?   

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • 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 »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1862
    • 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".

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • 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.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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 »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • 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).     
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • 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.       

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
Quote
.....but is not proven or necessary.

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

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 1862
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 311
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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 »