Evidence of God? Exploring Possibilities Through Human Introspection

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I believe Einstein's statement is very much taken out of context (in the same way that assuming anyone who used the phrase "Oh my god" actually believes in a god would be taking the phrase out of context). The quote is metaphorical in reference to common misinterpretation of Quantum Theory.

Einstein's "spiritual" philosophy was very close to that of Buddhism.

Actually when I quoted Einstein, it had nothing to do with his religious convictions. I have already been through this once before.

Even so, by the very nature of what he said, it suggests that if a God does exist, He would have to be very practical indeed, and hence "logical."

Well I can see there's a lot to address here, but unfortunately I don't have the time. Perhaps later?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I've done research like you wouldn't believe... its a hobby really ...

What exactly is the point of your research? Have you pretty much concluded that God doesn't exist, and tend to focus on those areas which only corroborate this? It's obvious you and I vary greatly in our approach here.

Are you at all familiar with the work of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung, both of whom are renowned for their work in the universal nature of myth and the psychologies derived therefrom? If not, then I would suggest you're not genuinely interested in finding the kind of evidence that might support the existence of God.

I've pretty much gathered that you're not "open" to the idea anyway.

Example of a statement that would yield an Unrestricted Negative: Religious beliefs do not have to be rational.

If something is "intrinsic" or real, what does that have to do with its being rational or not?

I don't believe Human Introspection is a good place to start because, obviously, the vast majority of humans all have different convictions of the existence of god(s) much less its general concept (i.e. Benevolent, Malevolent, Creator, etc. etc. etc.). Thus, Introspection fails.

And yet what other point of reference do we really have than ourselves? And what about consciousness, the very "portal" to our existense? For without it, indeed, there would be no need for science nor, would there be any need to recognize God.

Yep, I do have first-hand knowledge, I summarized the nature of reality (unless of course I dont live within reality...). The information is not by faith alone, it is in fact demonstratably true in any environment (provided you don't misinterpret or misrepresent the information). That still puts the existence of God(s) at 0%.

Either way you look at it, you're not going to solve anything by taking a poll, except perhaps in some people's minds.

Your assumption of a hypothetical deity is where your reasoning is flawed. You suggest something is wrong with science because it cannot ascertain fundamental existence, however your fundamental existence is derived from a hypothetical deity. (The flaw is that your premise - a hypothetical deity exists - is not known). Does that make sense? (It might be a little hard to follow...)

I do not believe God(s) exists or that it is fundamental to existence. For that reason, science won't ever be able to ascertain its existence.

But it would indeed be ironic if God did exist now wouldn't it?

Yep, the answer is in fact under our noses ...

Well, at least we can agree upon this much.

1 + 1 = 2 is demonstratably true (this is not the true for deities). It can done in approximately 15 seconds: You take one apple, you have one apple. You put another apple next to it, together you have 2 apples.

And yet there's quite a vast difference between 1 + 1 = 2 and E = MC2 now isn't there?

The "capacity to reason" between math with apples and the existence of deities are nonanalogous.

If God exists, then why can't it can be "reasoned out?" ... And why is math progressive?

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What exactly is the point of your research? Have you pretty much concluded that God doesn't exist, and tend to focus on those areas which only corroborate this? It's obvious you and I vary greatly in our approach here.

The point of my research? Well, I am an active member of the Skeptic Community (see signature), I encourage critical thinking.

Other skeptics (including those from the JREF boards) are PhDs in Physics, medical doctors, lawyers, parents, teachers, professors, and your good ol' fashioned average Joes. My primary expertise is Philosophy and Logic. I do my research encourage intellectual progression, and also to prevent people from falling to scams, pseudoscience, Psychics.

There is a messageboard called RaptureReady (http://www.rr-bb.com). Those people (not all of them) are very much into religous. However, they've taken their belief to a pathological level. I believe one of the more recent things I've read from there was something along the lines of "I don't think you go to Hell if you commit suicide as long as you have faith in Christ". While I don't fear a mass suicide, I would certainly discourage against saying things like that. Those kids have a completely insane (and bigoted) view of the world around them, and they encourage each other in ways that are as follows "So your husband is beating you... well stick with him and pray harder, the bible doesn't look to kindly on divorce, and it tells you to submit unto your husband so you don't have much of a choice". That is the kind of mentality that I would like to see ended.

Although my understanding of Physics is calibrated as "superior" by various organizations in relation to the people around me, I came to PhysicsForums for the intellectual atmosphere and to brush up on my Physics... it might help a little if I explored the non-Philosophy forums...

Why would I spend my time doing the research? Well, I paste an excerpt from something another member of the JREF forums had written, it gets the point across fairly well...

Intentionally holding on to a false view of reality is immoral. There are plenty of great thinkers who have argued that there is intrinsic evil in false beliefs. Regardless of whether such beliefs result in comfort or a sense of well-being, it is far more important and ethical for a person to have an understanding of reality.

...

Let's leave aside the question of religion for a moment. There are many other beliefs that are widely held yet that are known to be false. If a person persists in clinging to a false view of reality, knowing or having good reason to know of its falsity, then that person is lying to himself. There is no shortage of authority that lying to oneself is morally repugant. Shakespeare may have summed it up best with his pithy "to thine own self be true," but he was neither the first nor the last to express the sentiment. This is hardly a weak or losing point.

Turning back to the question of religion now, it is not true as a general matter that all religions are known to be false (although some are). As a general matter, assering the moral superiority of being true to oneself does not necessarily degrade religion. Moreover, many religions (including some flavors of Christianity) agree that it is extremely important to be honest to oneself. Even if one has a great deal "invested" in a belief, one should not persist in the false belief merely to "protect the investment."

...

Not all religions hold "false views of reality." Deism, for example, is a religion rooted in reality. Even some versions of Christianity insist upon an honest recognition of the real world. One Christian writer, for example, once said (and I'm paraphrasing) that we can be certain that any interpretation of Scripture that is inconsistent with science is a wrong interpretation. Other Christian writers adamantly disagree with this sentiment, of course; but it would not be fair to say that all Christians are divorced from reality merely because some are.

I don't feel I need much to address the rest of the post, for some reason I think it would be in my proper place of me to do so.

Oh, and Merry Christmas!

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Your assumption of a hypothetical deity is where your reasoning is flawed. You suggest something is wrong with science because it cannot ascertain fundamental existence, however your fundamental existence is derived from a hypothetical deity. (The flaw is that your premise - a hypothetical deity exists - is not known). Does that make sense? (It might be a little hard to follow...)

I do not believe God(s) exists or that it is fundamental to existence. For that reason, science won't ever be able to ascertain its existence.

But it would indeed be ironic if God did exist now wouldn't it?

Why? As I see it:

• 1) God exists with a strong interaction with humans. - No evidence has been demonstrated for this position.
  
  2) God exists, doesn't interact with humans much
  
  2a) and he expects humans to follow a lot of arbitrary rules, including believing in him.
  
  2aa) and will punish us for not following those rules - This makes god out to be a unreasonable bastard. Something we are taught isn't so.
  
  2ab) and it doesn't matter if we follow those rules - kinda makes the rule illogical to begin with.
  
  2b) and he doesn't expect humans to follow arbitrary rules, only to be civil to each other - then belief in him is irrelavent.
  
  3) God doesn't exist - then belief in him is more than irrelavent, it is effort with no benefit [given there are spiritual pursuits with no need for belief in a diety].

I'm sure there are many things that exist, which I've never even considered existing, and some I'm seen no evidence of that do. I wouldn't find it ironic that I didn't believe in them, unless I'd ignored good evidence that they did exist.

 

[agnostictheist]

"You are inadvertantly taking what I said out of its context."

I will contest that, on the basis that you make some premise, but these premise could be easyly incomplete, for example you state a 2d plane? you say nothing about it "cuvature"... while that example itself might not came to any harm it aids me that that your premises are never going to be fully adequte, to assume they are MIGTH make you fall into the same trap dear Euclid once did.

the point was not that I am out of context but rather your premise needed to have a few more "air-tight" axioms.


"What you are doing is setting up a semantics-based refutation regarding the meaning of the word "logical"."

then it is your job to make clear what you meant by it - which I will welcome.(or added)

...


"In my context, I was using logical regarding "the nature of logic", you were using logical regarding "what is sensible or coherent".

No i was not, if i did i would have said logical consistancy!

"That is where the semantics come in at, and that is why your question is invalid."

o dear, when you said : Well, I always thought the easiest way to disprove the existence of something was to show how it logically couldn't exist.

and I proposed that My thoughts are not logical, thus my thoughts don't exist (if we assumed (axiom) that the world is logical)

semantices is VERY important in logical arguments and this is no exception... While you in your statement did not say or probably meant the axiom, I am highligting the fact that its not so easy to or the easiest "disprove" something based on logical consistance IF the universe is not logical - mathamtical YES but we know that logic and maths are not the same.

in fact disprove, exists... all of which can have silighty different meanings in logical, and "reality". in which context do you refer to "disprove" - and yes I notice you put them in qoutation.

"For your example, there is no such thing as "infinite radius" because 1 unit can always be added to it. And 1 unit added to that, and another unit added to that... you could go on for quite a while... but to suggest "Infinite radius" would be internally contradictory. So there are no such things as circles with an infinite radius."

thats an potental infinity, not an actual infinity, the example you give may ONLY fit for potental infinity.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Your assumption of a hypothetical deity is where your reasoning is flawed. You suggest something is wrong with science because it cannot ascertain fundamental existence, however your fundamental existence is derived from a hypothetical deity. (The flaw is that your premise - a hypothetical deity exists - is not known). Does that make sense? (It might be a little hard to follow...)

I do not believe God(s) exists or that it is fundamental to existence. For that reason, science won't ever be able to ascertain its existence.

Yes, until you actually "know" or, have had first hand experience, it can only be presented in a hypothetical sense. In which case what may be hypothetical to you, may not be hypothetical to me. Even so, in order for me to present it in a way for you to evaluate it (compare it against what you already know), I have to present it in the hypothetical sense. Which by no means implies that it's hypothetical to me and, that I do in fact know what I'm talking about. Or, I would have you consider that possiblity.

Now just for the sake of argument, let's consider I do have a means of ascertaining whether this is true or not (I and many others in fact). Now where does that leave science? Or, if not science, then where does that leave you?

 

[agnostictheist]

Sorry Yarwey, but your statement is wrong:

You say:

“Your assumption of a hypothetical deity is where your reasoning is flawed.”

No its not, the reasoning itself is not flawed, (nesscerly) the reason can still be sound despite a premise being even false, the conclusion however can result in an invalid one.

I hope you realize that deductive reasons can be quite wrong – yet the reasoning itself is not flawed!

It would be better to say, what I saying in response to the following:

“ You suggest something is wrong with science because it cannot ascertain fundamental existence,”

I know this is in response to someone else, but I think I am going to agree with you here, simply because science can not ascertain fundamental existence is no reason to thus declare God has the default answer, while the premise of Gods existence maybe “true”, so equally may the premise of Gods non-existence. You thus went onto say..

“however your fundamental existence is derived from a hypothetical deity. (The flaw is that your premise”

Good now swap the “reasoning is flawed” with that of premise – quite right too!


“- a hypothetical deity exists - is not known). Does that make sense? (It might be a little hard to follow...)”

what is “Known”?