"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. "?

[mikkel_the_dane]

The cosmological principle is a nice clear statement of how science (hence I) looks at these matters.

But it's a claim capable in principle of being falsified by evidence, even though it's in use on the basis that so far it hasn't been falsified and it works well enough.

But I still have no idea what "godness" is.

Start with the unfalsifiable idea that there might be something, which is the cause of the universe for which the universe is the effect. In the strict sense that is supernatural, yet not religious as such. So God in this sense it the first unmoved mover, yet not religious as such.

See, I defined God without religion.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you suggesting this particular psychiatrist speaks for all psychiatrists?



Wait...you claim this psychiatrist is an expert, but then disregard their conclusion in favour of your own anyway?
Interesting logic.



Accepting your premise for a moment, saying 'often' means 'not always'. So how does that support no atheism being rational?
Whilst I don't agree with your arguments, even accepting this it's not consistent with your conclusions.



You're conflating atheism and atheists. That's about as valid as me saying 'Theists believe in a single Supreme Being'. Sure, some do. But theism...and atheism...is an umbrella term not specifically tied to dogma. Theists...and atheists, can have various beliefs, prejudices and dogma.



Atheism makes no such claim, and this is a repitition of the previous claim. Atheism is a simple and basic claim. Atheists, on the other hand, are human, varied, and full of beliefs and experiences far beyond mere atheism.



I'd merely suggest I don't know. It's particular theists...including yourself...who argue for a being without cause, a being who's purpose is...well. that's a topic for a different thread. Suffice to say you arguing that all items are created only works if you allow an out. Special exception for God.



You're actively arguing for a God of the Gaps?



All governments and all societies have fallen in time. But 'disproving atheism' is only possible by proving God. I get that you believe in God, but it's a special kind of hubris to believe you can prove him. Still, have at it if you like.
I, for one, wouldn't suggest I could disprove deism, for example.



That's one helluva claim, but I'm sure you're comfortable with it. Which should be an alarm for you. It's...again...an amazing level of hubris. I love in a society that's far more secular and with higher levels of non-religion than yours. If anything, the reaction here...with notable idiotic exceptions...has been far too underwhelming. 'She'll-be-right-mate' is a very Australian reaction.



That's absurd. I don't believe in God, so what God believes is not a concern. What believers believe absolutely impacts on me.



I mean...you're rambling. I don't revere any 'state', life has subjective purpose in my opinion (rather than objective) and permanence can't be conflated with 'purpose'.

Do you honestly think a mother's love for her child is without purpose?
That only life eternal makes it meaningful?

Well, if I was as well spoken and articulate as you, I could have made the same points and the joke is, I am religious.

@Samantha Rinne. You as a religious person don't speak for me, even though I am religious.

Regards and love
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

Start with the unfalsifiable idea that there might be something, which is the cause of the universe for which the universe is the effect. In the strict sense that is supernatural, yet not religious as such. So God in this sense it the first unmoved mover, yet not religious as such.

I don't see how it could be supernatural, rather than part of the physical universe / multiverse.

Incidentally, I already have my own favorite notion, unfalsifiable at least at this stage. I go with the idea that the contents of the Big Bang were indeed a plasma of pure energy. (If there were other ingredients then that doesn't harm the idea; but Occam says KISS). Thus everything is mass-energy, or properties or effects of mass-energy on both sides of the Big Bang, and the universe / multiverse exists because mass-energy does, including its 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions. That's to say, time exists because mass-energy does, which arguably does away with the problem of beginnings.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't see how it could be supernatural, rather than part of the physical universe / multiverse.

Incidentally, I already have my own favorite notion, unfalsifiable at least at this stage. I go with the idea that the contents of the Big Bang were indeed a plasma of pure energy. (If there were other ingredients then that doesn't harm the idea; but Occam says KISS). Thus everything is mass-energy, or properties or effects of mass-energy on both sides of the Big Bang, and the universe / multiverse exists because mass-energy does, including its 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions. That's to say, time exists because mass-energy does, which arguably does away with the problem of beginnings.

Supernatural: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.
The other side of the Big Bang is a supernatural claim, yet natural and not religious.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

Supernatural: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.
The other side of the Big Bang is a supernatural claim, yet natural and not religious.

But why is it a different "order of existence"? How could it NOT be an extension of physics, if the multiverse is taken to be real?

For instance, I know of no objective test that can distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.

So if there's a real multiverse, what test will tell us whether it's a "different order of existence" or not?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But why is it a different "order of existence"? How could it NOT be an extension of physics, if the multiverse is taken to be real?

For instance, I know of no objective test that can distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.

So if there's a real multiverse, what test will tell us whether it's a "different order of existence" or not?

It is supernatural, because it is unknowable beyond the knowable universe.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

It is supernatural, because it is unknowable beyond the knowable universe.

How does that differ from being imaginary?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How does that differ from being imaginary?

I image God as the first unmoved mover is not different that I imagine a real multiverse. Both are unknowable from with the universe.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

I image God as the first unmoved mover is not different that I imagine a real multiverse. Both are unknowable from with the universe.

So. to be clear, no different to imaginary?

 

[paarsurrey]

It is irrational to NOT believe in God

what?...….top of the line life form are we?

nothing greater than being human?

7billion copies of a learning device and we all end up as dust?
not ONE chance in billions of surviving the last breath?

and in the scheme of superlatives...….
bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.....
and WHAT stands at the top of the list?

"It is irrational to NOT believe in God"

So, one is a believer ,not a disbeliever. Right, please?

Regards

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So to be clear, no different to imaginary?

No, not in effect.
Here is a scientist about theoretical physics:
"For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there is an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, The New York Times, "A Brief History of the Multiverse""

The moment you end with a singularity or something to that effect and even beyond as the Multiverse you in practice are saying something about something, which in principle is unobservable.
Observation requires the following:
You are in the universe and you observe as "I observe something". The singularity and beyond doesn't meet that standard.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

I image God as the first unmoved mover is not different that I imagine a real multiverse. Both are unknowable from with the universe.

I can imagine a multiverse, probably incorrectly, but the concept is coherent.

Unless we know what "godness" is, the concept of a real god is incoherent. If we drop that requirement we can have (the concept of) a real superscientist, no?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can imagine a multiverse, probably incorrectly, but the concept is coherent.

Unless we know what "godness" is, the concept of a real god is incoherent. If we drop that requirement we can have (the concept of) a real superscientist, no?

Well, yes, but that is logic and logic has limits. The moment you declare it real as real of the objective, but not as logical reality, you are saying something wrong as it is a wrong belief about reality as such, because it is unknowable.

So yes, you have a technical point, but in practice it amounts to the same. We are playing unknowable.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

Well, yes, but that is logic and logic has limits. The moment you declare it real as real of the objective, but not as logical reality, you are saying something wrong as it is a wrong belief about reality as such, because it is unknowable.

"Logical reality" sounds like a secondary meaning to "real", like say "real numbers". The primary meaning of "real" is having objective existence ie existing in the world external to the self, in nature, in the realm of the physical sciences.

So yes, you have a technical point, but in practice it amounts to the same. We are playing unknowable.

I think we're discussing coherent concepts as against incoherent concepts. There's no coherent concept of a real god or a real supernatural.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Logical reality" sounds like a secondary meaning to "real", like say "real numbers". The primary meaning of "real" is having objective existence ie existing in the world external to the self, in nature, in the realm of the physical sciences.
I think we're discussing coherent concepts as against incoherent concepts. There's no coherent concept of a real god or a real supernatural.

Yeah, and the real multiverse is not real, it is only real as a logical concept in your brain.

We are talking past each other. "A real god" as a creator god is not logical nor observable where as "a real multiverse" is logical but not observable.
You are trying to win on a technicality which has no meaning in practice because both cases are unobservable.

You win on logic and lose on being observable.
So you can go all you want on - But, I win on logic!!!

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, and the real multiverse is not real, it is only real as a logical concept in your brain.

Yes, that's what I said ─ but it's a coherent concept. The concept of a real superscientist is also coherent, though also imaginary. The concept of a real unicorn likewise. The concept of a real god is not coherent because there's no meaningful definition of "real godness" ─ if we found a real candidate, we could determine whether he, she or it was a real superscientist or real unicorn but not whether he she or it was a real god.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, that's what I said ─ but it's a coherent concept. The concept of a real superscientist is also coherent, though also imaginary. The concept of a real unicorn likewise. The concept of a real god is not coherent because there's no meaningful definition of "real godness" ─ if we found a real candidate, we could determine whether he, she or it was a real superscientist or real unicorn but not whether he she or it was a real god.

There is no real multiverse, because you can't observe it. You are playing with the word "real". For the multiverse to be reality, you have to be able to observe it. You can't.
It can be all the logically coherent you like.
So here your problem with real, you can only decide if something it real by observation, but you can't observe what is outside the universe, nor can you apply real from inside the universe on what is outside the universe, because you don't know how real is on the outside.

You are doing the following. Here is how it is on the inside, we can check. So it is the same on the outside, thought we can't check.
Do you get it now?
I am not talking about the inside of the universe. I am talking about, how everything, if there is something outside the universe, is unknowable and that includes what real is.
Do you get it now?
In short you claim logic on the inside applies to the outside! You can't know that!
Do you get it now?
Do you get, that we are playing "I know - logic applies", thought you don't know that.

We can't check if the universe is from a superscientist, is natural as a multiverse or from a creator God, regardless of all the logic you apply on the inside, because all of it is on the outside.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

We can't check if the universe is from a superscientist, is natural as a multiverse or from a creator God, regardless of all the logic you apply on the inside, because all of it is on the outside.

We can define the superscientist such that if we found a real candidate we'd be in a position to determine whether it was a superscientist or not. Ditto with the multiverse. But otherwise with God, who lacks the coherent definition of the other two.

So it was possible to imagine that the Higgs boson was real ─ to imagine a real Higgs boson ─ and it's possible to imagine a real multiverse and a real superscientist. Imagining them to be real doesn't make them real in fact, as you say. But it's not possible to imagine a real God because the necessary quality "godness" is undefined.

 

[blü 2]

There is no real multiverse, because you can't observe it.

No there can be a real multiverse. Whether there is or not we don't know.

You are playing with the word "real". For the multiverse to be reality, you have to be able to observe it. You can't.

I say again: We can imagine a real multiverse (just as we imagined a real Higgs boson). Imagining it real doesn't make it real, but that's beside the point.

So here your problem with real, you can only decide if something it real by observation

That's not in dispute.

you can't observe what is outside the universe

And that's not in dispute.

nor can you apply real from inside the universe on what is outside the universe

But I didn't say 'outside the universe' is real. I said we can imagine it to be real.

you claim logic on the inside applies to the outside!

No, I can't and I didn't. I can however imagine that it might, hence I can imagine it with that quality, or I can imagine it without that quality or I can imagine it and leave that part unclear.

But this only arises because I've pointed out that the definition of multiverse is clear enough to allow us to imagine real examples ─ as distinct from asserting their existence ─ meanwhile there is no coherent concept of a real god, so we can't do that with a real God, or, a real god.

 

[Tiberius]

and the problem has no solution?

I was pointing out that Prue's solution is meaningless, since it doesn't solve anything, it just pushes the problem back a step.