Whats the proof that god exists?

  • Thread starter HIGHLYTOXIC
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, people believe in god because human minds are capable of creating something that does not exist. The idea of a god is dangerous because it causes people to argue and commit suicide.
  • #141


Originally posted by Rader
The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.


Not only does that make no sense, but its pure supposition.

The ontologic reason is human consciousness is aware of the I, the world and the God.

Again, pure supposition. Anyway not eveyone is aware of (a sense of) God, because not everyone believes and not everyone was born into a Judeo-Christian culture.

[The epistemologic reason is knowledge of it is everywhere. The parameteres for our existence are set so fine, that not time or chance or anything else but a creator can account for it. Creation is a mirror of its creator. Complexity can not evolve from simplicity without a reason. We are all aware of the reason. Goodwill and badwill do not mean what they do for no reaon. The world strives to be better not worse. Human consciousness increases not decreases.

So, the evidence for God's existence is that the only explanation you can think of / comprehend is that a huge invisible being did it? I've never heard an adequate explanation of why anyway. Complexity emerges from simplicity all the time - the term is 'emergent complexity'. Look at the Mandelbrot set, look at the Game of Life, look at a game of chess.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
Mumeishi, of course you could go on and on (and frequently do ) as could I. Your post affirms just what I said in my last post. My personal experience is unacceptable to anyone and everyone else just as are yours or anyone else's . I may well be just as crazy and deluded as those poor souls in the mental institution. I often wonder and have doubts myself.
My one and only point is that there is "more under the stars than is drempt of by your philosophers, Horatio." Just because you see no evidence of anything proves only that you are looking in the wrong place. If we look only at the physical we see only the physical.
If the only tool that we have is a hammer then we treat everything as if it is a nail (to borrow a phrase from Les). That is my point. As I said in my first post in this thread, there is no proof of God nor can anyone prove the existence of God to anyone else. The reality of God must be experienced by oneself.
 
  • #143
The reality of God must be experienced by oneself.

Never better stated. It comes down to consciounsess you either are or are not conscious that God exists. When you reach that level of consciousness you will be conscious of it.
 
  • #144
*sighs*
 
  • #145
I have enjoyed reading these posts the past few days, but I wonder how similar a thread entitled "Whats the proof that proof exists?" would grow. Perhaps we could start one and see, hmm?
 
  • #146
the big bang and religion

There should be a balance between religion and science. Neither can answer the big question conclusively. I agree with most contemporary cosmological models, and mainstream theories going back to the Big Bang.
The question is ,how does this infinite point become this universe, and what started the process? BTW,Mr. Scientist, what was "before" space time and the B.B.?

I have read and understand most of the major theories, all have fatal flaws. Science should strive to describe our universe,and embrace the metaphysical. I suspect (know) that the "spooky action at distance" (Einstein skeptically lamenting collapse of the wave function)and the metaphysical will become part of TOE!


Merlin
 
  • #147
Originally posted by Infomeantion
I have enjoyed reading these posts the past few days, but I wonder how similar a thread entitled "Whats the proof that proof exists?" would grow. Perhaps we could start one and see, hmm?

AFAIK,
(if you mean absolute proof as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt)
there is no proof that proof exists
there is no evidence that proof exists
there is evidence that proof does not exist (but not proof),

'Proof' is a much-misused term. There is no proof in science, except to mean 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
 
  • #148
BTW,Mr. Scientist, what was "before" space time and the B.B.?

The BB theory doesn't go beyond that point.

Time and the space dimensions of our universe are properties of it and not something that it sits in. Thus, there was no 'before' time began.

We can conjecture some other time-like dimensions outside the universe, but it may be intrinsically unknowable.
 
  • #149
----------------------------------------------------------------
AFAIK,
(if you mean absolute proof as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt)
there is no proof that proof exists
there is no evidence that proof exists
there is evidence that proof does not exist (but not proof),

'Proof' is a much-misused term. There is no proof in science, except to mean 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Just some silly questions that come to mind:

Is there evidence that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' exists?
Is there evidence that evidence exists?
Is 'proof', meaning 'beyond reasonable doubt', a keystone in science or is it called reproducability?
How does that reproducability transmogrify into 'beyond reasonable doubt'?
What came first the chicken or the neutron? (Hint: which chicken?)

Sorry, but like I said, I've enjoyed these posts and yours as well, so you can just ignore the chicken one if you want.
 
  • #150
I suppose you can go into an endless spiral of skepticism if you're really keen, but I don't think I'll be coming along.
 
  • #151
lets ask what SEEMS to be a easier question, Whats the PROOF we exist?
 
  • #152
The BB theory doesn't go beyond that point.

Time and the space dimensions of our universe are properties of it and not something that it sits in. Thus, there was no 'before' time began.

We can conjecture some other time-like dimensions outside the universe, but it may be intrinsically unknowable.

Hmmmm interesting, I was aware of conventional science allowing that space time is our universe and "we" can't be outside IT. It isn't a bubble because there isn't anything outside the bubble! But that's all science can give us now. so you are saying that space/ time is and "was" infinite. If you are saying that space/time "started" there must be something before the start. ( I don't trust the zero point vac fluc.scam) However If it was infinite (something that I may not accept), there would be NO beginning and NO end and BTW no big bang. I feel that there was something like a big bang. I tend to squash the Infinite parallel universe religion, because it takes more faith (for me) to believe it than intelligent design!

How hard would it be for an advanced race of beings (where, or better yet WHAT did THEY come from?), to make a universe? We will be nice and say that these beings are "just" 2.5 thousand million years more advanced than we. So we would be pond scum in their "eyes," no, WAIT! pond scum would be a hundreds of millions of years more advanced than we! (at that point)! Think of us as an amino acid base and they are the humans! We are aproxx. that advanced over the first stirrings of life on this planet. Hmmm, new query... How to talk to an semi alive acid goop ? With computer power increasing in exponential leaps, and the explosive implications of human genetic research in the last, Oh... 50 years, it isn't hard to imagine this unfolding much faster. Much faster! Say less than 100,000 years. Or 1000 years! oh yeah. But we won't be here more than 100 years..too bad for us!


Merlin
 
Last edited:
  • #153
Hmmmm interesting, I was aware of conventional science allowing that space time is our universe and "we" can't be outside IT. It isn't a bubble because there isn't anything outside the bubble! But that's all science can give us now. so you are saying that space/ time is and "was" infinite. If you are saying that space/time "started" there must be something before the start. ( I don't trust the zero point vac fluc.scam) However If it was infinite (something that I may not accept), there would be NO beginning and NO end and BTW no big bang. I feel that there was something like a big bang. I tend to squash the Infinite parallel universe religion, because it takes more faith (for me) to believe it than intelligent design!

Not infinite, but finite and boundless like the surface of a sphere.
 
  • #154
Originally posted by agnostictheist
lets ask what SEEMS to be a easier question, Whats the PROOF we exist?
Any chance we can subvert this thread and pretend its asking the reasonable question 'whats's the EVIDENCE that God exists?'
 
  • #155
How does that reproducability transmogrify into 'beyond reasonable doubt'?

Occam's razor states that for any given set of evidence, if two hypotheses fit that evidence equally, the one which makes the fewest assumptions is more likely to be true.

If you don't accept the reproducibility of the research as evidence of a correlation of some sort, you would have to account for it by inventing hypothses which would have to become more and more elaborate as further research eliminated potential sources of interference. The simpler hypothesis is probably the original one.

The fewer assumptions you have to make, the more probable your hypothesis.
 
  • #156
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Not infinite, but finite and boundless like the surface of a sphere.

Are you reffering to Imagnary time, and hawking-non boundary proposal?

if so I don't see this has a argument aganist God, hawking states that there was no specfic time, in which the universe came to be, also from what I think he says - its like there is no past future and present, for example:


A---------B


the movement to a - b is a passage from past to present, so Hawking does not deny there is a past and presnt, and what not - but then there is anther form of "time" which can be seen like this


C


D

and in this oriention, there is no past future etc!

hawking now claims (IF I am correct) that the universe simply is , no external is needed and thus the universe is "BE"


While this maybe have merit, it might be needless to ristrictive, if what I understand is correct, for starters God IF he exists does so out of time, thus attempting to added lines like "God frist did this" is somewhat a problem in the languge of everyday, and is applying some human concepts to a Godly prespective.

secondly, Why not argue that God "created" a system, that was set-up and also had some of his likeness, much in the same was has A balls relfection might be a circle, both may contain a likeness - eg circleness... a form of infinity, and likewise God and the universe are both enternal (yet of a different sort)?

in this senerio, the universe very much simply "BE" - but much like a relfection MUST have an object, the object does not need the reflection! so the argument does not need time! for the argument steams for likeness, not the process of getting it.


Of course this is metaphyical and not science, but Hawking never claims to be atheist, he himself claims to be a pantheist?? of sorts, or agnostic - maybe a deist?

the point is hawking makes claim that if God exists, its science can't answer a yes or a no, to the question


Any chance we can subvert this thread and pretend its asking the reasonable question 'whats's the EVIDENCE that God exists?'

Yes now we have a better question, asking for proof is an impossible task, within any worthwhile manner, Evidence is anther ball game, however Evidence itself to can be sub-setted, there are many different types of "evidence" some more realible than others, and it depends what type of philosophy you subscribe to (rationalists, empiricalists or even a combo of the two)

While I don't think there is any evidence for God... with the exception of POSSIBLE "personal revelations" etc - but one can argue aganist these, and there is a greater chance of been sucked into some scam, the universe does tend to have some, limits : eg its not that anything is possible, but anything that is possible no matter how unlikey will happen... this limition could be seen has a sort of "desgin" but it doesn't mean thus the only anwser by default is God...and even if it is doesn't mean a personal one?


I would like to see what Chroot, says of this... not coz I am having a debate elsewere.. but coz, some kind of review form other debators which hold more info on physics (and cosomology?) maybe able to add input... even those there is a strong philosophical and theological spin to this.


So my answer is Yes there is Evidence of sorts for IF God existence, this is how he might do it, but the evidence is only Yes or no.. on the basis of opinion. and to claim agnostism alone is somewhat unware that the same arguments for no, are the same for yes, depending on what spin you intailly put: (not spin in a physics sense)

to ask the question Does God exist would mean we must have an experiment of some sort, that can test from a godly point of veiw to, I wish people the best of luck in this... coz its not possible.

Please note: when I refer to God I mean a judo-christian God, i have note talked about the different types of God eg Bharma.. but asking who is God..is anther question!
 
  • #157


Originally posted by Mumeishi
Not only does that make no sense, but its pure supposition.

The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe. [/QUOTE

The inadequacy of the answers we receive is a direct consequence of the limitation implicit in the viewpoints of the questioner. Paradoxes and ambiguities arise from confusing levels of consciousness; an answer is true only at its own level of consciousness. Thus a answer is “correct” but simultaneously” invalid” like a musical cord note that is correctly played but at the wrong place in the song. I am sorry you have to understand this for yourslelf.

Again, pure supposition. Anyway not everyone is aware of (a sense of) God, because not everyone believes and not everyone was born into a Judeo-Christian culture.

You may not want to admit it but you are conscious of it. Are you conscious of love?, then you are conscious of God. The existence of God is not physical it is subjunctive. What does Judeo-Christian have do do with this. God is not limited to a group of people.

"Spiritual truth" is beyond meaning; it doesn't 'mean' anything. It can only be known, and that knowledge can only come about by becoming. Meaning is a mentation and a definition. Spiritual truth is a subjective awareness which is innately beyond intellection. For instance, what does a beautiful sunset 'mean'? It doesn't 'mean' anything; it is just startlingly that which it is, complete and total in and of itself. God is a direct awareness and experience, a realization, a revelation, and the absolute perfection of pure subjectivity.

So, the evidence for God's existence is that the only explanation you can think of / comprehend is that a huge invisible being did it? I've never heard an adequate explanation of why anyway. Complexity emerges from simplicity all the time - the term is 'emergent complexity'. Look at the Mandelbrot set, look at the Game of Life, look at a game of chess.

The evidence of God can be in your mind, it is no where else.
 
Last edited:
  • #158
No matter how emotionally appealing it seems, 'evidence' that is purely a subjective feeling does not justify belief - as I already said, a visit to a mental institution will confirm that.
 
  • #159
agnostictheist,

The point of my stating that time is theorized to begin at the big bang is not necessarily to exclude the possibility of God, but to answer the common and rather silly claim that there HAD to be something before the big bang and the latter had to have a 'cause' (with the obvious implication that somehow that cause could only have been old Jehovah).

While I don't think there is any evidence for God... with the exception of POSSIBLE "personal revelations" etc - but one can argue aganist these, and there is a greater chance of been sucked into some scam, the universe does tend to have some, limits : eg its not that anything is possible, but anything that is possible no matter how unlikey will happen... this limition could be seen has a sort of "desgin" but it doesn't mean thus the only anwser by default is God...and even if it is doesn't mean a personal one?

I don't understand your argument here. Can you make it again using sentences?
 
  • #160
God didnt create people, people created god. People believe in god bc they want to. Its not easy living in this rotten world. There is nothing certain while living on this world so people use god to create an imaginary illusion that helps keep them at peace. Without god, we are insignificant beings in a place without reason to our existence. Some people can accept this, while others need god as a reason to live.
 
Last edited:
  • #161
Originally posted by HIGHLYTOXIC
whats the proof of existence of god?How can anyone believe?
First off, to believe (or know) begins with consciousness, for without it, we wouldn't even know that we exist. In which case we have to ask ourselves, what is the nature of consciousness and where does it come from?

Indeed, isn't this the very idea which facillitates the plausibility of a Universal Mind which is Ever-Present and All-Knowing, and exists in the here and now?

For what is consciousness, but the quality of knowing? And how else do we experience it, except through that which is Ever-Present and Ever-Lasting? (i.e., in the here and now). Hence it would seem the qualities of consciousness are contingent with the qualities of a Universal Mind.

Think about it! :smile:
 
  • #162
No matter how emotionally appealing it seems, 'evidence' that is purely a subjective feeling does not justify belief - as I already said, a visit to a mental institution will confirm that.

is it always unjustified to believe you are in love because it is based on a purely subjective feeling and not something that has undergone a thurough scientific study (of course, by that it seems that that must not involve psychology)? granted, it may "really" be puppy love or infatuation, but sometimes it may even be the case that one is, in fact, in love though since they can't prove it to you it must be the case that ... what? that they can't prove it or that it's not true?

other questions: can you have an unjustified belief that happens to be correct or is that something you can prove to be impossible? is it possible for an illogical argument to accidentally end in a correct conclusion or are all conclusions of illogical arguments incorrect?

Someone may have a personal experience that convinces him that he is John the Baptist, or that aliens are controlling his brain. Someone may have a personal experience that God loves her and another person may have a personal experience that he is the incarnation of Aten the one true god of the sun. They could have a subjective experience that they were flying or able to turn into a jaguar or invincible. I could go on.

right, or one could have a series of subjective experiences leading them to believe any scientific theory, that they exist, that they think, that they have free will, etc., which leads into:

But its essential to note that there are ways to eliminate much bias and subjective distortion, that science is based on objective verification meaning that the same experiment should produce the same relults no matter who does it. Purely subjective experiences are not admissable as evidence because they contradict one another and without additional verification they may be no more than psychological events.

how is this objective verification performed? i guess what I'm really asking is how is it been proven to be objective and what is the definition of reasonable in "beyond a reasonable doubt"? seems to me that though you can't really prove it's objective yet still believe it is, you're falling into the category of it being emotionally appealing to believe that science removes the taint of subjectivity.

what isn't a psychological event, really? what isn't coming in through the ego, subject :wink: to misinterpretation? maybe you think that doubting everything is absurd, especially when it comes to doubting the objectivity of science and/or doubting what our senses tell us (eg when we *look* at readings on a measurment tool). that brings us back to what reasonable doubt means. one person's reasonable is another's absurdity.

interesting how God is goobledegook or not depending on what's convienient for you. for any belief, a stubborn person will refuse to accept it no matter what. the thing is that i am an agnostic theist of sorts and i believe that neither logic nor observation is going to ever prove God exists (with certain caveats). i also believe that neither logic nor observation are infinite in an ultimate sense: of course logic is potentially infinite in that one can construct infinitely many formulas to study but its scope is limited. and observation won't ever establish any infinite trait as far as i know, at least not in finite time. in short, i think "God exists" is undecidable though true nonetheless. so is that belief unjustified? of course but then again so is belief in the opposite position. the logical option is to neither believe God exists nor God does not exist.

in regards to other posts, to be a smart aleck, even if man created god, then god exists. btw, not everyone who believes in God does so for emotional or psychological satisfaction. i find writing "God exists" no more and no more less emotionally rewarding than writing "1+1=2" or "God does not exist." I'm not expecting reward in the afterlife for good deeds nor am i expecting bad deeds to be punished (by God). so at least in my case, it's not like I'm a doggie who does tricks for treats and goes to the doghouse when I'm bad.

interesting that you mention mental institutions. delusion is kind of interesting. there apparently is such a thing as a shared psychotic episode and so i wonder if every scientist who performs one experiment is deluding themselves into believing a certain outcome. that's probably as integrous as suggesting that all people who believe in God are delusional. of course, popularity has nothing to do with how credible theism is yet it does have something to do with how credible a scientific theory is. it seems that you think it's a near certainty that everyone who believes in God is deluding themselves and each other and a near certainty that scientists aren't doing the same thing.

you may want to check out the phd thesis "quantitative and qualitative analysis and calibration of the levels of human consciousness" by david hawkins, published in 95 by veritas along with "the eye of the i: from which nothing is hidden" and "i: reality and subjectivity" by the same author.

i wonder if there was supposed evidence of God, would you even bother to look into it or would you presume it to be incorrect, assume it's wrong, and not check it out because it seems emotionally appealing to you to not believe in God or at least appear to not believe proof of God exists. (after all, I'm not sure you ever said you didn't believe in God; you may have just been making the point that there is no scientific evidence for it.)
 
Last edited:
  • #163
Originally posted by Mumeishi
No matter how emotionally appealing it seems, 'evidence' that is purely a subjective feeling does not justify belief - as I already said, a visit to a mental institution will confirm that.

Mumeishi, i know you like to use that mental intitution excuse, but you can not argue that if we all needed shrinks, we would all be in the hospital. You and i are not, you can not use that excuse.

The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.

You have a very good chance of understanding some day. I did not give that ethical reason for scorn. That reason can be given through scorn or love but it was not.

Here is a link to help you understand.
http://www.stjohndc.org/beatitud/beatitud.htm [Broken]

To say that nothing is real unless it is measurable is already an abstract position, is it not? This proposition itself is nowhere tangible, visible or measurable; the argument of tangibility is itself created from the intangible. Everything has its derivitive in the subjunctive. God, thoughts, emotions, material world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #164
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
is it always unjustified to believe you are in love because it is based on a purely subjective feeling and not something that has undergone a thurough scientific study ...that they can't prove it or that it's not true?

Believing that you are 'in love' is only a statement about being in a particular psychological state and not a statement about the objective world. Few would deny that 'experiencing God' exists as a psychological state.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
other questions: can you have an unjustified belief that happens to be correct or is that something you can prove to be impossible? is it possible for an illogical argument to accidentally end in a correct conclusion or are all conclusions of illogical arguments incorrect?
Of course that is possible. You can be right 'for the wrong reasons'. It could be a coincidence or a correlation which arose from natural selection or some such. Again, I'm not trying to do the impossible by proving that there is no God (whatever that means), I'm trying to show that there is no valid evidence for belief.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
right, or one could have a series of subjective experiences leading them to believe any scientific theory, that they exist, that they think, that they have free will, etc., which leads into:

They could but none of those beliefs would be justified on that 'evidence' alone. None of them.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
how is this objective verification performed? i guess what I'm really asking is how is it been proven to be objective and what is the definition of reasonable in "beyond a reasonable doubt"? seems to me that though you can't really prove it's objective yet still believe it is, you're falling into the category of it being emotionally appealing to believe that science removes the taint of subjectivity.

I've already covered this. The scientific method is proven (whenever I use this word I don't mean it in an absolute sense) historically. If an experiment provides the same positive results when repeated by others, you either accept that there is some correlation that needs explaining or you have to invoke some sort of political or cosmic conspiracy theory to explain it. The more assumptions you have to introduce to explain it, the more uncertainty you are necessarily introducing, therefore the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions has a greater probability of being correct. This is the basis od Occam's Razor, I think. It is simpler, and thus more probable, to accept that there is some force that acts on apples and other objects on earth, each time we drop one, rather than invoke complex, question-begging, assumption-making explanations such as that there is a race of invisible beings which are moving the apples in order to trick us or that the apples fall because we expect them to.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
what isn't a psychological event, really? what isn't coming in through the ego, subject :wink: to misinterpretation? maybe you think that doubting everything is absurd, especially when it comes to doubting the objectivity of science and/or doubting what our senses tell us (eg when we *look* at readings on a measurment tool). that brings us back to what reasonable doubt means. one person's reasonable is another's absurdity.

The alternative explations would be more complex, beg more questions and make more assumptions. If 'everything is subjective', I can control reality with my thoughts and not only fly etc, but make subjectivism false just by disbelieving in it. It seems to me that subjectivism is not only absurd, but a philosophy of desperation. It's inherent skepticism (even if successful) would undermine theism as much as science and even erode its own truthfulness. Its based un an insistence on absolute certainty, which is not available. Our relationship to reality is more fuzzy and probabalistic than that. I prefer a more pragmatic approach which actally engages with reality to this sort of vanishing-up-ones-own-rectum sophistry.

Everything we are aware of is necessarily a psychological event, yes. But the issue is which of those events is also an event which occurred externally to the brain and mind.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
interesting how God is goobledegook or not depending on what's convienient for you. .

I understand approximately what God is supposed to be but cannot reconcile his supposed qualities with each other or with reality or scripture. Nor can do ideas like infinitely powerful seem to make sense under scrutiny. I understand the term 'God' in a similar way to 'unknowable square circle'.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
for any belief, a stubborn person will refuse to accept it no matter what.

Or, refuse to disbelieve no matter what. This is why we need actual evidence not just conviction. Got any?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
the thing is that i am an agnostic theist of sorts and i believe that neither logic nor observation is going to ever prove God exists (with certain caveats). i also believe that neither logic nor observation are infinite in an ultimate sense: of course logic is potentially infinite in that one can construct infinitely many formulas to study but its scope is limited. and observation won't ever establish any infinite trait as far as i know, at least not in finite time.

This sort of thinking (which is based on the presupposition of God in order to justfy belief aka. 'pulling yourself up by your bootstrap' aka. 'begging the question' aka 'circular reasoning') creates a very favourable environment for the virus-like meme-complex to continue to flourish in your mind. Best of luck to it.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
in short, i think "God exists" is undecidable though true nonetheless. so is that belief unjustified? of course but then again so is belief in the opposite position. the logical option is to neither believe God exists nor God does not exist.

How can they both be justified when only one of them can be true?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
in regards to other posts, to be a smart aleck, even if man created god, then god exists. btw, not everyone who believes in God does so for emotional or psychological satisfaction. i find writing "God exists" no more and no more less emotionally rewarding than writing "1+1=2" or "God does not exist." I'm not expecting reward in the afterlife for good deeds nor am i expecting bad deeds to be punished (by God). so at least in my case, it's not like I'm a doggie who does tricks for treats and goes to the doghouse when I'm bad.
I'm not convinced. And I don't think you can necessarily be fully aware of the psychological impact of a belief system.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
interesting that you mention mental institutions. delusion is kind of interesting. there apparently is such a thing as a shared psychotic episode and so i wonder if every scientist who performs one experiment is deluding themselves into believing a certain outcome.

Even when they do so independently or are trying to prove competing theories? There is no evidence for this proposed (invented) phenomenon, so you are introducing complex assumptions as an alternative to there simply sometimes being repeatable correlations between phenomena. I do see self-induced psychosis at work in some places though

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
that's probably as integrous as suggesting that all people who believe in God are delusional. of course, popularity has nothing to do with how credible theism is yet it does have something to do with how credible a scientific theory is. it seems that you think it's a near certainty that everyone who believes in God is deluding themselves and each other and a near certainty that scientists aren't doing the same thing.

You need evidence to support either of these hypootheses, in the absense of this you can always clutch at straws as you are doing. Science is not decided by votes.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i wonder if there was supposed evidence of God, would you even bother to look into it or would you presume it to be incorrect, assume it's wrong, and not check it out because it seems emotionally appealing to you to not believe in God or at least appear to not believe proof of God exists. (after all, I'm not sure you ever said you didn't believe in God; you may have just been making the point that there is no scientific evidence for it.)

Of course I would look at the evidence. In fact, I'd say that I have quite strong natural religious tendencies, its just that I have strong critical thinking tendencies too and I find the idea of deluding myself abhorrent. I've been looking for ways to express and explore those tendencies without tasking on nutty beliefs, through paganism and later through Zen Buddhism, so far unsuccessfully, but exploring it through art is looking promising. What do you think the emotional appeal of atheism is? I suppose I find the idea of exploring actual reality to the best of my ability appealing, rather than blindly accepting dogma or delusion, and learning about science can be quite wonderful in a quasi-religious way, when you start to form a single, unified picture of everything unfolding from a common source.
 
Last edited:
  • #165
Originally posted by Rader
Mumeishi, i know you like to use that mental intitution excuse, but you can not argue that if we all needed shrinks, we would all be in the hospital. You and i are not, you can not use that excuse.

Some forms of delusion are more socially acceptable than others.

Originally posted by Rader

The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.

And the ethical reason for Santa existing is that some kids are naughty. Therefore Santa exists.

Originally posted by Rader
You have a very good chance of understanding some day. I did not give that ethical reason for scorn. That reason can be given through scorn or love but it was not.

I shall pray to understand one day and to stop being so scornful.

Originally posted by Rader
To say that nothing is real unless it is measurable is already an abstract position, is it not? This proposition itself is nowhere tangible, visible or measurable; the argument of tangibility is itself created from the intangible. Everything has its derivitive in the subjunctive. God, thoughts, emotions, material world.

This is a strawman argument, because I've never said this. Try again.
 
  • #166
Believing that you are 'in love' is only a statement about being in a particular psychological state and not a statement about the objective world. Few would deny that 'experiencing God' exists as a psychological state.

love exists.

They could but none of those beliefs would be justified on that 'evidence' alone. None of them.

so is looking at readings on a measurment device and reading reports of supposed others who supposedly have similar data subjective experiences or not?

I've already covered this. The scientific method is proven (whenever I use this word I don't mean it in an absolute sense) historically. If an experiment provides the same positive results when repeated by others, you either accept that there is some correlation that needs explaining or you have to invoke some sort of political or cosmic conspiracy theory to explain it. The more assumptions you have to introduce to explain it, the more uncertainty you are necessarily introducing, therefore the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions has a greater probability of being correct. This is the basis od Occam's Razor, I think. It is simpler, and thus more probable, to accept that there is some force that acts on apples and other objects on earth, each time we drop one, rather than invoke complex, question-begging, assumption-making explanations such as that there is a race of invisible beings which are moving the apples in order to trick us or that the apples fall because we expect them to.

proven to be what? objective? as objective as possible, whatever that means? perfect?


The alternative explations would be more complex, beg more questions and make more assumptions. If 'everything is subjective', I can control reality with my thoughts and not only fly etc, but make subjectivism false just by disbelieving in it. It seems to me that subjectivism is not only absurd, but a philosophy of desperation. It's inherent skepticism (even if successful) would undermine theism as much as science and even erode its own truthfulness. Its based un an insistence on absolute certainty, which is not available. Our relationship to reality is more fuzzy and probabalistic than that. I prefer a more pragmatic approach which actally engages with reality to this sort of vanishing-up-ones-own-rectum sophistry.
how about two assumptions: (1) Is and (2) there are no reasons.
one question: why ask why?
how complex is that?

"If 'everything is subjective', I can control reality with my thoughts" umm... how does that follow?

absolute certainty is available.

what if what was really objectively true wasn't pragmatic at all? would you still want to be objective? do you want to know what the truth is at any cost?

I've already told you that I understand approximately what God is supposed to be but cannot reconcile his supposed qualities with each other or with reality or scripture. Nor can do ideas like infinitely powerful seem to make sense under scrutiny.
well, even the smallest kind of infinity in math, the set of natural numbers, is hard to comprehend. consider all the open problems in number theory. and that's just level uno. so it's not hard to understand why a limited mind would have trouble grasping the infinitely powerful which one would imagine would at least rival N in complexity. perhaps you're wondering about such questions as "can God create a stone it can't lift?" is that what you mean? there are a couple of ways to deal with this, including the analogy to the undecidability of certain statements in N and the relaxation of there being two truth values. in a three truth value system, T, F, and mu, the answer yes has truth value mu and the answer no has truth value mu; no contradiction. on the other hand, it doesn't really matter if logic can grasp something which is practically by definition, if there were one, that is ungraspable.

a pantheist believes that God is the totality of all that is. I've been told that spinoza is similar to this but i haven't really checked that philosopher out much.

seems like if you define God "weakly," like by saying God is love or God is perfect or God is all that is, it obviously exists but one has trouble attributing such things as consciousness, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, etc, to it. on the other hand, if one defines God "strongly," by defining it to be conscious, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, etc, then one runs into the problem with proving it exists.

Or, refuse to disbelieve no matter what. This is why we need actual evidence not just conviction. Got any?
what would constitute evidence either for or against the existence of God?
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
in short, i think "God exists" is undecidable though true nonetheless. so is that belief unjustified? of course but then again so is belief in the opposite position. the logical option is to neither believe God exists nor God does not exist.
How can they both be justified when only one of them can be true?
i said that both were UNjustified. besides, the answer to the question "does God exist" could be yes with truth value mu and no with truth value mu. it's not the case that either of them has to be true.
I'm not convinced. And I don't think you can necessarily be fully aware of the psychological impact of a belief system.
oh, and anyone else is? why would i desire to believe in God? why would i need to believe in God?

Even when they do so independently or are trying to prove competing theories? There is no evidence for this proposed (invented) phenomenon, so you are introducing complex assumptions as an alternative to there simply sometimes being repeatable correlations between phenomena. I do see self-induced psychosis at work in some places though

so since living in a matrix, for example, would be a more complex assumption than we are not, that proves that we're not?

You need evidence to support either of these hypootheses, in the absense of this you can always clutch at straws as you are doing. Science is not decided by votes.
neither is theism.

what i mean is that there is some correlation between how many scientists have adopted a belief vs whether or not it is considered scientifically valid by both scientists and the general public.

Of course I would look at the evidence. In fact, I'd say that I have quite strong natural religious tendencies, its just that I have strong critical thinking tendencies too and I find the idea of deluding myself abhorrent. I've been looking for ways to express and explore those tendencies without tasking on nutty beliefs, through paganism and later through Zen Buddhism, so far unsuccessfully, but exploring it through art is looking promising. What do you think the emotional appeal of atheism is? I suppose I find the idea of exploring actual reality to the best of my ability appealing, rather than blindly accepting dogma or delusion, and learning about science can be quite wonderful in a quasi-religious way, when you start to form a single, unified picture of everything unfolding from a common source.
are your critical thinking abilities infinite? do you think it's even infinitesimally possible that you will ever be able to wrap your head around God? i went through belief systems like a junkie through heroin, starting and ending with some form of theism. the end state was not the result of an inner debate. if it were, i might share it, but it wasn't. I'm not sure atheism has an emotional appeal, at least not the same appeal for everyone. there are a host of reasons why someone would be athiest. it's not that i think critical thinking or science should be thrown out the window. indeed, i think they should be exploited to their maximum benefit whereas others i won't mention would rather your critical thinking skills be dulled. but i also believe that not only is science completely irrelevant to God one way or the other, critical thinking skills in general lead me, at least, to believe that critical thinking skills won't solve the issue. being that real life is more complex than math, in a sense, and some statements in math are undecidable, it seems plausible that not only do undecidable statements exist, but that "God exists" is one of them. that means trying to decide it logically is no more than an exercise in logic and will never be finished. i believe that even if there were a logically correct proof of God, or a being who exhibited finite traits it great abundance, there will always be someone who refuses to accept it.

not that you'll find a proof either way (i don't mean it to be), but you may or may not find what's on my discussion forum relevant:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #167
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
love exists.

As a psychological event with a series of corresponding neurological events, not as a substance I can buy by the pound. God exists to Judeo-Christian types in the same way, just as Santa exists to kids, and Amun existed to the ancient Egyptians. All of these are dependent on our minds having a particular nature - this is far from the sort of reality being ascribed to God by theists.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
so is looking at readings on a measurment device and reading reports of supposed others who supposedly have similar data subjective experiences or not?
Yes, but not JUST a psychological event. That's the point.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
proven to be what? objective? as objective as possible, whatever that means? perfect?
As objective as possible. That's all that can be done.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
how about two assumptions: (1) Is and (2) there are no reasons.
one question: why ask why?
how complex is that?
I don't understand.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
"If 'everything is subjective', I can control reality with my thoughts" umm... how does that follow?
Because if there is no objectivity, then if I believe something is true then it is true. Therefore I can make things true by decis=ding that they are true. There is no external reality to inhibit this. [/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
absolute certainty is available.
Not justified absolute certainty.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
what if what was really objectively true wasn't pragmatic at all? would you still want to be objective? do you want to know what the truth is at any cost?
Do you mean that the truth might be metaphysical? What have you got?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

well, even the smallest kind of infinity in math, the set of natural numbers, is hard to comprehend. consider all the open problems in number theory. and that's just level uno. so it's not hard to understand why a limited mind would have trouble grasping the infinitely powerful which one would imagine would at least rival N in complexity. perhaps you're wondering about such questions as "can God create a stone it can't lift?" is that what you mean? there are a couple of ways to deal with this, including the analogy to the undecidability of certain statements in N and the relaxation of there being two truth values. in a three truth value system, T, F, and mu, the answer yes has truth value mu and the answer no has truth value mu; no contradiction. on the other hand, it doesn't really matter if logic can grasp something which is practically by definition, if there were one, that is ungraspable.?

Yes, 'Mu' would be a good answer to that question. And you know what 'Mu' means (assuming you are using it in the sense originating from Zen)? It means you are asking an absurd question. It is an absurd question in the same way that 'how many corners does a square circle have?' is an absurd quastion. You are asking a question about an incongruous, absurd concept. By the way, I have 'mu' in my name - it means 'nobody'.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
seems like if you define God "weakly," like by saying God is love or God is perfect or God is all that is, it obviously exists but one has trouble attributing such things as consciousness, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, etc, to it. on the other hand, if one defines God "strongly," by defining it to be conscious, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, etc, then one runs into the problem with proving it exists.

Seems I missed your argument to show that a 'weakly defined' God 'obviously exists'. Do you mean:
-God is love
-Love exists
-Therefore God exists?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No, please... tell me that's not what you mean.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

what would constitute evidence either for or against the existence of God?
I don't think there could ever be evidence against the existence of an entity which is defined as 'unknowable' (that's why I believe in the Unknowable Unicorns of Ulan Bator). In terms of evidence, for God, all he would have to do it perform some easily accomplished and indisputable miracle and I'd be convinced. If I and thousands of others witness a thousand angels lift the White House and drop it on Osama Bin Laden's head. Or really anything else clear which was not better explained in naturalistic terms. Jesus came back and didn't die this time and performed miracles we could all see and even scrutinise etc. I would certainly reassess my beliefs. If Jesus did it for Thomas, why won't God do it for me?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i said that both were UNjustified. besides, the answer to the question "does God exist" could be yes with truth value mu and no with truth value mu. it's not the case that either of them has to be true.
I see (I think). And that means God exists in a way that Santa and the 'Unknowable Square Circle of Zog' don't because...?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

oh, and anyone else is? why would i desire to believe in God? why would i need to believe in God?
Because you are afraid of death. Because you are afraid of the responsibility of being the arbiter of your own morality. Because you don't feel comfortable not knowing all the answers. Because you like the idea that the moral decisions you make in life are part of some grand cosmic drama. Because you felt more secure when you had a daddy to tell you what was right and wrong. Because you are genetically disposed towards religiosity... etc

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

so since living in a matrix, for example, would be a more complex assumption than we are not, that proves that we're not?
No it just makes it less credible. Just like the idea that we are the daydream of a giant space-goat. That movie has a lot to answer for in terms of propagating BS philosophy.


Originally posted by phoenixthoth
neither is theism.
That would be besides the point, but anyway how do you think theism is decided? Well researched reference to scripture? Who's to say that scripture is correct unless its just consensually (word?) accepted?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

what i mean is that there is some correlation between how many scientists have adopted a belief vs whether or not it is considered scientifically valid by both scientists and the general public.
If one scientist can show that his hypothesis fits the evidence better than that accepted by the majority, then his hypothesis (all else being equal) is the better hypothesis whether the majority like it or not. This is how some scientific revolutions begin, eg quantum mechanics, sun-centred solar system etc. To not accept it would be to violate scientific principles.
A 'fact' in scientific terms is a piece of information which is widely-accepted enough to be taught intact eg. the Earth is round, evolution etc. Reality is more fuzzy than that, but learning facts is far easier for school-kids etc than learning the complexities of dispute, which is usually reserved for higher levels of education.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

are your critical thinking abilities infinite? do you think it's even infinitesimally possible that you will ever be able to wrap your head around God? .

I cannot justifiable 'know' there is no God. But the 'God hypothesis' is just one of an unlimited and equal body of unknowable untestable hypotheses some theistic, some not. This background of vanishingly small hypothetical possibilities is the default state of knowledge. If we believed things just because their possibility could not be excluded we would be like extreme schizophrenics with as many beliefs as they have thoughts. We would be paralysed with indecision. There is no rationality to believing in anyone of these ideas or acting as if they were true, when there are other alternatives supported by actual evidence. It is only the persistent, consistent existence of supporting evidence that can pull a hypothesis from this virtual froth.
 
  • #168
Yes, but not JUST a psychological event. That's the point.
prove it.

I don't understand.
which part(s)? btw, I'm not saying that that's my position.
Because if there is no objectivity, then if I believe something is true then it is true. Therefore I can make things true by decis=ding that they are true. There is no external reality to inhibit this.
i'm not getting how "if I believe something is true then it is true" follows from "there's no objectivity."
Not justified absolute certainty.
is that what i said?
Do you mean that the truth might be metaphysical? What have you got?
what do you mean by metaphysical? i think it's possible that there are truths that are non-physical and non-energetic unless one has real lose definitions of what physical means. even with those lose definitions of physical, it's possible that there are metaphysical truths.
Yes, 'Mu' would be a good answer to that question. And you know what 'Mu' means (assuming you are using it in the sense originating from Zen)? It means you are asking an absurd question. It is an absurd question in the same way that 'how many corners does a square circle have?' is an absurd quastion. You are asking a question about an incongruous, absurd concept. By the way, I have 'mu' in my name - it means 'nobody'.
once i was in a phase where i wanted to believe in God but i clinged to rationality and critical thinking as the end alls and be alls and so i really, deparately wanted an answer to the question "can God create a stone it cannot lift." the response i got was something like, "can uga buga widget a buga uga?" i think his point was that talking about God is a waste of time; in some sense, it transcends description.

Seems I missed your argument to show that a 'weakly defined' God 'obviously exists'. Do you mean:
-God is love
-Love exists
-Therefore God exists?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No, please... tell me that's not what you mean.
yup, that's what can happen when one defines God weakly. existence is the easy part but consciousness, perfection, and the three omni's are "hard" to prove. on the other hand, if you define God to have those properties, then existence is the problem. I'm using unused cpu resources to look at whether or not there's a way the carpet can fit the room without a corner of the rug coming up in one of the corners. with a pantheistic approach, consciousness is pretty weak, perfection is seemingly a matter of opinion, and i can only get two of the three omni's.

I don't think there could ever be evidence against the existence of an entity which is defined as 'unknowable' (that's why I believe in the Unknowable Unicorns of Ulan Bator). In terms of evidence, for God, all he would have to do it perform some easily accomplished and indisputable miracle and I'd be convinced. If I and thousands of others witness a thousand angels lift the White House and drop it on Osama Bin Laden's head. Or really anything else clear which was not better explained in naturalistic terms. Jesus came back and didn't die this time and performed miracles we could all see and even scrutinise etc. I would certainly reassess my beliefs. If Jesus did it for Thomas, why won't God do it for me?
is that the definition of God? i think it would be more correct that one can know all about God but the only way to know God is to be at least omniscient. in some sense, many people don't even know themselves completely yet they evidently exist though all one seems to be able to do is know about themself and not truly know themself. there is no such thing as an indisputable miracle. it would have to be finite in nature, albeit big. and then you would have to wonder if God caused the miracle or not or if it was just a really weird coincidence that spawns generations of research until it can be "explained" (you know, like creation). even if thousands of others witness something, that still doesn't prove they're not all experiencing a mass hallucination. again, popularity is not proof. in addition to "why won't God do it for me," why not also ask:
1. would i want to have the choice taken away
2. do i really want God to do it for me
3. does there have to be a reason you can possibly understand
4. can God be pursuaded to do anything
5. do i know the best way for myself for God to do it
6. is God not already doing it (related to 1 and 2)?
etc, etc

I see (I think). And that means God exists in a way that Santa and the 'Unknowable Square Circle of Zog' don't because...?
the "evidence" that seems to indicate that santa doesn't exist is that, at least as far as i know, no one is going around once a year distributing presents to homes. and so that while "God exists" may have truth mu, "santa exists" seems to have truth value false unless existence includes fictituous existence, in which case it's true, evidently. seems to me that in order for a square circle to have any "sense" whatsoever, the "law" of identity must be violated. eg, let S be the unit circle and let S be the boundary of [0,1]x[0,1]. S!=S but S is a square circle. in order to talk about a square circle, one must yank that rug up from the room rather brutally. if you assume that the rules of logic are inviolate (meaning that even an omnipotent being can't violate them yet i just did), then the truth value of "a square circle exists" is not mu but false thus differentiating that from the truth value of "God exists" which is possibly mu.

having said that, could it be that there is a santa but just one whose nature is inaccurately described in myth? in other words, a santa (and i don't just mean some guy named santa) that exists but isn't at all like he is descibed? oh wait, those are the same words pretty much... well, that's what some theists think about God: one exists but just one whose nature is inaccurately described in myth.

Because you are afraid of death. Because you are afraid of the responsibility of being the arbiter of your own morality. Because you don't feel comfortable not knowing all the answers. Because you like the idea that the moral decisions you make in life are part of some grand cosmic drama. Because you felt more secure when you had a daddy to tell you what was right and wrong. Because you are genetically disposed towards religiosity... etc
what does God have to do with death? why would you think I'm afraid of death? i don't get morality from God whatsoever. i don't believe absolute right or wrong exist. believing God exists doesn't give one all the answers (or even very many answers), at least not for me. in fact, the more i think about it, the more i wonder if "why" always has an answer. covered morality: it don't exist. as hamlet said, "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so." everything would seem to be apart of the cosmos whether you believe in God or not and one is free to see things as a drama or not. actually, my dad never told me much of anything and neither does God. the genetic thing is interesting... out of the set of six parents and grandparents, only one was religious so i guess it isn't a dominant gene. is this what your "critical thinking" assumes about all theists or just me? I'm sure you've seen these characteristics before so i guess that makes it always true.
No it just makes it less credible. Just like the idea that we are the daydream of a giant space-goat. That movie has a lot to answer for in terms of propagating BS philosophy.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
That would be besides the point, but anyway how do you think theism is decided? Well researched reference to scripture? Who's to say that scripture is correct unless its just consensually (word?) accepted?
my own personal choice had nothing to do with what i believe in being "voted on" by anyone. while your generalizations no doubt apply to at least some people, i do doubt they apply to all.

I cannot justifiable 'know' there is no God. But the 'God hypothesis' is just one of an unlimited and equal body of unknowable untestable hypotheses some theistic, some not. This background of vanishingly small hypothetical possibilities is the default state of knowledge. If we believed things just because their possibility could not be excluded we would be like extreme schizophrenics with as many beliefs as they have thoughts. We would be paralysed with indecision. There is no rationality to believing in anyone of these ideas or acting as if they were true, when there are other alternatives supported by actual evidence. It is only the persistent, consistent existence of supporting evidence that can pull a hypothesis from this virtual froth.
well, what i mainly would like to say that believing "God exists" and "God does not exist" is not logically justified. someone's going to be correct, i bet, without having a justification.

btw, slippery slope. if we believe in God, we have to believe everything a crazy person says and everything we can't disprove. in short, believing in God would result in the world collapsing. is that something that will happen only when all people believe in God, because a lot do already, even einstein, kaku, hawking, etc, and i don't think they believe everything they can't disprove.
 
  • #169
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
prove it.
I've already argued that the alternative (philosophical idealism) would require more assumptions and thus is less credible, and that it is self-defeating. Another criticism is that the neural pathways that provide our experiences can be traced physically, as can other physical>mental causal relationships such as the fact that if I put drugs into my bloodstream it would affect the nature of my consciousness and the fact that a neaurosurgeon can directly influence the nature of consciousness in a fairly predictable way by stimulating or interfering with specific areas of the brain. the only idealist explanation for that would be that some cosmic conspiracy is trying to make us think that there is a physical basis for consciousness. This begs so many questions that it is absurd. And even if it were true, we would have no hope of seeing through the deception.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

which part(s)? btw, I'm not saying that that's my position.
I don't understand it at all. Try putting it a different way.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

i'm not getting how "if I believe something is true then it is true" follows from "there's no objectivity."
My mind is subject to will. If all is mind, all is potentially subject to will.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

is that what i said?
You said that absolute certainty is possible. I'm saying that it doesn't matter because such certainty is unjustified. What is not achievable is absolute knowlege.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

what do you mean by metaphysical? i think it's possible that there are truths that are non-physical and non-energetic unless one has real lose definitions of what physical means. even with those lose definitions of physical, it's possible that there are metaphysical truths.
Perhaps - like mathematical and logical truths for example.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

once i was in a phase where i wanted to believe in God but i clinged to rationality and critical thinking as the end alls and be alls and so i really, deparately wanted an answer to the question "can God create a stone it cannot lift." the response i got was something like, "can uga buga widget a buga uga?" i think his point was that talking about God is a waste of time; in some sense, it transcends description.
Perhaps, but just because it 'transcends description' doesn't mean it exists or is true. There is still no difference in principle from the concept of the Unknowable Square Circle or the Ineffable Pink Elephant which also 'transcend description'.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

yup, that's what can happen when one defines God weakly. existence is the easy part but consciousness, perfection, and the three omni's are "hard" to prove. on the other hand, if you define God to have those properties, then existence is the problem. I'm using unused cpu resources to look at whether or not there's a way the carpet can fit the room without a corner of the rug coming up in one of the corners. with a pantheistic approach, consciousness is pretty weak, perfection is seemingly a matter of opinion, and i can only get two of the three omni's.
Why are you so determined to believe, when you are struggling to demonstrate its existence?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

is that the definition of God? i think it would be more correct that one can know all about God but the only way to know God is to be at least omniscient. in some sense, many people don't even know themselves completely yet they evidently exist though all one seems to be able to do is know about themself and not truly know themself. there is no such thing as an indisputable miracle. it would have to be finite in nature, albeit big. and then you would have to wonder if God caused the miracle or not or if it was just a really weird coincidence that spawns generations of research until it can be "explained" (you know, like creation). even if thousands of others witness something, that still doesn't prove they're not all experiencing a mass hallucination.

What's the difference between knowing about God and knowing God. You mean you can know something exists without knowing what that something is? Is that possible? And if you don't know what it is, you might be mistaken something for 'God' when it is actually something else like 'activity in your temporal lobe'.

Mass delusion is only possible under some circumstances. If you filmed an event and a variety of 'unprimed' people came and saw first hand and the vast majority agreed there could be no reasonable grounds for dispute.

1. would i want to have the choice taken away
It wouldn't be - I'm still free.
2. do i really want God to do it for me
Of course! Why is he hiding anyway?
3. does there have to be a reason you can possibly understand
Well, theist seem able to claim to understand well enough to insist that people live in a particular way. Anyway, all I was after was a simple demonstration of his existence, not an insight into the way he thinks. If he's hiding and even creating a false picture of a universe which is entirely naturalistic, for a reason you can't explain then I would have to question what else he is deceiving us about. Perhaps its all a test to eliminate the gullible people (theists) who will accept things unquestioningly. Perhaps he is evil or indifferent. What right do theist have to claim the know the intentions of a being that is unknowable (as well as unevidenced and incredible)?
4. can God be pursuaded to do anything
Evidently not. But what chance do I have of seeing 'the truth' when 'the truth' is pulling the wool over my eyes? How can I have responsibility for not accepting God when it is his secretiveness or even deceptiveness which has damned me?
5. do i know the best way for myself for God to do it
See above
6. is God not already doing it (related to 1 and 2)?
No
etc, etc
Yadda yadda Yadda

the "evidence" that seems to indicate that santa doesn't exist is that, at least as far as i know, no one is going around once a year distributing presents to homes.
...
then the truth value of "a square circle exists" is not mu but false thus differentiating that from the truth value of "God exists" which is possibly mu.
In that case God exists to the same extent that I can clap with one hand.

having said that, could it be that there is a santa but just one whose nature is inaccurately described in myth? in other words, a santa (and i don't just mean some guy named santa) that exists but isn't at all like he is descibed? oh wait, those are the same words pretty much... well, that's what some theists think about God: one exists but just one whose nature is inaccurately described in myth.
So you claim to know it exists but you don't know what it is. It amazes me that a bright person like you is prepared to accept this claptrap.

is this what your "critical thinking" assumes about all theists or just me? I'm sure you've seen these characteristics before so i guess that makes it always true.
It was a list of suggestions that's all. You tell me why you believe in God and not other untestable hypotheses? Does it give you a nice feeling inside?

If we are pat of a simulation, there's no way we could think our way out of it, so we are forced to accept some things as given. ie. that physics is real.

well, what i mainly would like to say that believing "God exists" and "God does not exist" is not logically justified. someone's going to be correct, i bet, without having a justification
While we cannot know there is no X (when X is only partially defined and defined as unknowable) I'd say that I've already shown that believing in God is no more justified than believing that space aliens are controlling our thoughts and will use the most well-fed humans as fodder in the year 2013. It is irrational to remain in a state of indecision, the most rational action is to suspend doubt and pick the most well-evidenced hypothesis and act as if it were true.

btw, slippery slope. if we believe in God, we have to believe everything a crazy person says and everything we can't disprove. in short, believing in God would result in the world collapsing. is that something that will happen only when all people believe in God, because a lot do already, even einstein, kaku, hawking, etc, and i don't think they believe everything they can't disprove.
I don't know about Kaku, but certainly Einstein and Hawking do not believe in God in any recognisable Judeo-Christian sense - more a shorthand for an unknown cause outside the universe, if it exists, whatever it might be - seems quite reasonable to me. People (including a minority of scientists) believe in God because the idea is appealing, not because it is rational.

And as Richard Dawkins put it:
If God is a synonym for the deepest principles of physics, what word is left for a hypothetical being who answers prayers, intervenes to save cancer patients or helps evolution over difficult jumps, forgives sins or dies for them?
 
Last edited:
  • #170
Reply to Mumeishi

agnostictheist, I will agree with most of what you've posted. I don't agree with Mumeishi. This debate has, like Mumeishi's universe, become a sphere that takes us back to the start.With nothing resolved.

It is much easier (for me and my universe or paradigm) to place faith in intelligent design than unproven theories. When the big bang or any cosmological model becomes fact, I'll accept it or any TOE, Only when is fact. And as I've said before, the metaphysical will merge with the physical, (and all physics) in the correct TOE.

MERLIN
has the flu...
 
  • #171
I've already argued that the alternative (philosophical idealism) would require more assumptions and thus is less credible...
that's not a proof.
I don't understand it at all. Try putting it a different way.
assumptions: 1. something exists (be it an illusion or not, be it all in the mind or not). 2. there are no reasons.
the only question: 1. why ask why?
how complex is that? and what i mean by that is that you say that alternatives involve MORE assumptions and MORE questions are "begged."
You said that absolute certainty is possible. I'm saying that it doesn't matter because such certainty is unjustified. What is not achievable is absolute knowlege.
this goes back to your quote in the beginning. you believe something, evidently not with absolute certainty, without any more than a plausibility argument. absolute knowledge is achievable, though i doubt absolutely and absolutely complete knowledge is achieveable.
Perhaps, but just because it 'transcends description' doesn't mean it exists or is true. There is still no difference in principle from the concept of the Unknowable Square Circle or the Ineffable Pink Elephant which also 'transcend description'.
of course. btw, nothing i say (or at least, not much that i say if anything) is intended to be taken as evidence for or against God. as I've said, i don't believe that's possible.
Why are you so determined to believe, when you are struggling to demonstrate its existence?
why? i don't know. i guess it's not that different from being "determined" to believe that the computer screen I'm looking at exists or that i exist. I'm not struggling to demonstrate its existence, actually. i don't think it's possible to.
What's the difference between knowing about God and knowing God. You mean you can know something exists without knowing what that something is? Is that possible? And if you don't know what it is, you might be mistaken something for 'God' when it is actually something else like 'activity in your temporal lobe'.
well that concept may be better illustrated by analogy. what's the difference between knowing about genius and knowing genius (or insert any concept instead of genius). for one thing, a sudden leap in knowledge can occur when one is a genius. you can know all about a concept but until you walk a mile in that concept's shoes, metaphorically speaking, you don't know that concept. you can know all about love but something changes in how well you know love when you actually experience it for yourself. or sex. or drugs. examples abound.

the computer screen I'm looking at could also be actually something else like activity in my temporal lobe but as you've alluded to, that possibility requires more assumptions, begs more questions, and makes it less credible. i can want money real bad, but how often do people who want money real bad will start hallucinating a pile of gold in their garage? how many people are hallucinating God? while i think that for many, in fact, they may be hallucinating, i doubt that all of them are.

Mass delusion is only possible under some circumstances. If you filmed an event and a variety of 'unprimed' people came and saw first hand and the vast majority agreed there could be no reasonable grounds for dispute.
recording miracles has never seemed to convince everyone in the past. (eg the bible.) film of ufo's hardly convinces everyone that ufo's exist, so why would this be any different? people are just going to assume that the film has been cgi'ed by industrial light and magic. besides, who is to say what the source of the miracle is? why would it have to be God?
It wouldn't be - I'm still free.
what i meant was that if you saw what was indisputable evidence for you. so if you saw such evidence, you would technically still have the choice to not believe it but you'd then be choosing between being rational and being free. the rest of the questions could possibly be more delicate and/or complex than you think. then again, possibly not.

In that case God exists to the same extent that I can clap with one hand.
correction: you can prove God exists to the same extent you can prove you can clap with one hand. being able to prove it exists has NOTHING to do with whether or not it does exist. btw, i can clap with one hand.


So you claim to know it exists but you don't know what it is. It amazes me that a bright person like you is prepared to accept this claptrap.
i've said this before. one can know about God but the only way to know all about God or to know God is to be at least omniscient. i realize what my limits are.

Does it give you a nice feeling inside?
in the theology section on my discussion forum, there's a "why i believe in God" thread. it may answer your questions. sometimes, it gives me a nice feeling inside but other times, i does not. you can't possibly know what I'm talking about; trust me, it has not always been a "nice feeling inside."

if there is no way to get out of the simulation, then it doesn't seem to matter whether or not it is a simulation. but what if we can get out of it?

I don't know about Kaku, but certainly Einstein and Hawking do not believe in God in any recognisable Judeo-Christian sense - more a shorthand for an unknown cause outside the universe, if it exists, whatever it might be - seems quite reasonable to me. People (including a minority of scientists) believe in God because the idea is appealing, not because it is rational.

i'm not much of a abrahamic religion adherent myself though i used to be a while ago. i understood the thread title to be "what's the proof that god exists" and not "religions are correct."
 
Last edited:
  • #172


Originally posted by Merlin
agnostictheist, I will agree with most of what you've posted. I don't agree with Mumeishi. This debate has, like Mumeishi's universe, become a sphere that takes us back to the start.With nothing resolved.

It is much easier (for me and my universe or paradigm) to place faith in intelligent design than unproven theories. When the big bang or any cosmological model becomes fact, I'll accept it or any TOE, Only when is fact. And as I've said before, the metaphysical will merge with the physical, (and all physics) in the correct TOE.

MERLIN
has the flu...

So you'll accept one unproven hypothesis (ID) on faith, but not others, even though the latter have evidence and the former has none. OK, well you're a free man, you can think what you like.
 
  • #173
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
that's not a proof.
There is no such thing as absolute proof in such matters, only evidence and probability. I've been over this several times now.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
assumptions: 1. something exists (be it an illusion or not, be it all in the mind or not). 2. there are no reasons.
the only question: 1. why ask why?
how complex is that? and what i mean by that is that you say that alternatives involve MORE assumptions and MORE questions are "begged."

In science, really the question 'why?' is not asked, only 'what?' and 'how?'. It is simply an investigation into the nature of what all this is, whatever it ultimately is.

this goes back to your quote in the beginning. you believe something, evidently not with absolute certainty, without any more than a plausibility argument. absolute knowledge is achievable, though i doubt absolutely and absolutely complete knowledge is achieveable.

Do go on.
of course. btw, nothing i say (or at least, not much that i say if anything) is intended to be taken as evidence for or against God. as I've said, i don't believe that's possible.
There is no justification for believing in gods in this day and age.

why? i don't know. i guess it's not that different from being "determined" to believe that the computer screen I'm looking at exists or that i exist. I'm not struggling to demonstrate its existence, actually. i don't think it's possible to.
I don't have to try to believe these things. The evidence is so strong, consistent, and verifiable that believing these things did not exist would be more of a challenge.[/QUOTE]

well that concept may be better illustrated by analogy. what's the difference between knowing about genius and knowing genius (or insert any concept instead of genius). for one thing, a sudden leap in knowledge can occur when one is a genius. you can know all about a concept but until you walk a mile in that concept's shoes, metaphorically speaking, you don't know that concept. you can know all about love but something changes in how well you know love when you actually experience it for yourself. or sex. or drugs. examples abound.
'Knowing about' genius does not necessarily mean you understand its true nature. And being regarded as one by society doesn't either - its just something that happens to you.

the computer screen I'm looking at could also be actually something else like activity in my temporal lobe but as you've alluded to, that possibility requires more assumptions, begs more questions, and makes it less credible. i can want money real bad, but how often do people who want money real bad will start hallucinating a pile of gold in their garage? how many people are hallucinating God? while i think that for many, in fact, they may be hallucinating, i doubt that all of them are.
Visions of God are not common. Most people's belief is based entirely on faith, perhaps accompanied by a warm fuzzy feeling or an imagined feeling of company. These are quite simple to imagine and I've done it myself.
There is some evidence that our brains are hard-wired to give us religious feelings even visions. And these can be induced artificially my neuroscientists stimulating the temporal lobes with a magnetic field. They also often arise if the lobes go into spontaneous seizure.

recording miracles has never seemed to convince everyone in the past. (eg the bible.) film of ufo's hardly convinces everyone that ufo's exist, so why would this be any different? people are just going to assume that the film has been cgi'ed by industrial light and magic. besides, who is to say what the source of the miracle is? why would it have to be God?
I thought God could do anything. It would be a simple matter for him to clarify his existence to billions of people. Your excuses for him are unconvincing.

what i meant was that if you saw what was indisputable evidence for you. so if you saw such evidence, you would technically still have the choice to not believe it but you'd then be choosing between being rational and being free. the rest of the questions could possibly be more delicate and/or complex than you think. then again, possibly not.
Don't really know what you mean. Sounds like you're clutching for more excuses. If God 'showed up' I'd believe he existed and would then have a choice whether to follow him or reject him. Right now I don't have that choice because I am aware of no such entity to worship.

correction: you can prove God exists to the same extent you can prove you can clap with one hand. being able to prove it exists has NOTHING to do with whether or not it does exist. btw, i can clap with one hand.

Yeah, and again this belief is based entirely on nothing more than 'a strong but unsupported conviction'. There is no proof, there is not even any valid evidence, (private, subjective experiences are not valid even to those who have them), but there sure are a lot of beleivers.

if there is no way to get out of the simulation, then it doesn't seem to matter whether or not it is a simulation. but what if we can get out of it?
First you would need evidence that it is a simulation. Got any?


i'm not much of a abrahamic religion adherent myself though i used to be a while ago. i understood the thread title to be "what's the proof that god exists" and not "religions are correct." [/B]
The concept of 'god' we are discussing comes primarily from Abrahamic religion. Most other religions are polytheistic (Hindu) or atheistic (Buddhism).
 
  • #174
Originally posted by Mumeishi
agnostictheist,

The point of my stating that time is theorized to begin at the big bang is not necessarily to exclude the possibility of God, but to answer the common and rather silly claim that there HAD to be something before the big bang and the latter had to have a 'cause' (with the obvious implication that somehow that cause could only have been old Jehovah).



I don't understand your argument here. Can you make it again using sentences?

Ok Mumeishi, I accept the reason for this thread, and agree with you - butit doesn't stop me adding anther view!

your right that people tend to ask these questions with the tent to pin God behind it, personally I think its silly for theists, and well has other parties.
 
  • #175
There is no such thing as absolute proof in such matters, only evidence and probability. I've been over this several times now.

I have not read the whole thread, so I make this a general comment, there is no such thing has absolute proof, depending on context and prespective - eg: ours (doesnt disagree with Mu statement)

But that does not mean thus there is no absolute proof.

In science, really the question 'why?' is not asked, only 'what?' and 'how?'. It is simply an investigation into the nature of what all this is, whatever it ultimately is.

argeed, why..etc, is more concered with philosophy, and ontology and metaphysics.

- some people or groups eg: Logical postivism, hold that concepts such as these are meangless, personaly I find this far to restrictive, but on the other hand, this sort of reasoning type does yeild reliable data/evidence and interprations.


I thought God could do anything. It would be a simple matter for him to clarify his existence to billions of people. Your excuses for him are unconvincing.

If reffering to a xtian type God, this is missleading, rather God can do anything that is Good, and is all powerful (infinite- in his natures and attrubies) infinity comes in many forms and does not nesscerly mean without any except..eg: MUST be Good and Evil etc...


Yeah, and again this belief is based entirely on nothing more than 'a strong but unsupported conviction'. There is no proof, there is not even any valid evidence, (private, subjective experiences are not valid even to those who have them), but there sure are a lot of beleivers.

correct, on the other hand this could be again missleading, you would think a transcdant type God would not nesscerly be subject to OUR measurments, while may do so, has a contigent, God is not the kind of father that comes running in when the kids start to cry or want something.


The concept of 'god' we are discussing comes primarily from Abrahamic religion. Most other religions are polytheistic (Hindu) or atheistic (Buddhism).

then you would be more careful with the difference between God and god.


Hence my argument, but one that does not really say God does exist, for to answer that we need to be in a different prespective, for me God MAY exist, and if so How using for the most part deductive reasoning, and except the altertnative possiblities also. but to use only logic, science etc... is a gross error in finding ones way to God, one has to adimt that this also may easly lead us astray.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
532
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
780
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
14
Views
342
Replies
4
Views
729
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
443
  • General Math
Replies
11
Views
1K
Back
Top