Do We Really Have To Choose?

[Quiddity]

Your argument is circular. The argument you made in this thread, which I assume you think is relevant to the thread. It's fallacious. In other words, wrong. If your argument is relevant, the fact that it's circular, therefore fallacious, is also relevant.

Isn't that obvious?

What are you talking about?

What argument did I put forward?

 

[Autodidact]

What are you talking about?

What argument did I put forward?

The argument that I quoted in my post. Please do try to follow along here. You stated that

An african priest once told me that not a single word made him catholic. He saw how God moves people to love their neighbor and that did it for him.

I pointed out that argument, the argument that God moves people to do good, therefore one should be Catholic, assumes its conclusion and therefore is circular, that is, fallacious.

As I made clear, when you see people loving their neighbor, you assume that God moves them. You are assuming your conclusion. Get it?

 

[Quiddity]

The argument that I quoted in my post. Please do try to follow along here. You stated that I pointed out that argument, the argument that God moves people to do good, therefore one should be Catholic, assumes its conclusion and therefore is circular, that is, fallacious.

As I made clear, when you see people loving their neighbor, you assume that God moves them. You are assuming your conclusion. Get it?

1. That wasn't an argument by any means. If it was, I suck at making arguments.
2. Nowhere did indicate "therefore one should be Catholic".
3. I didn't make that statement; an african priest did. One could even say that I might disagree with his interpretation and still believe in the existance of God.
4. If I were to observe such a thing happen, it wouldn't just be assumed.

Like I said, you assume too much. How about talking to me, rather then what you think you know about us poor ol religious folk.

 

[Autodidact]

1. That wasn't an argument by any means.

Oh. O.K. in that case what was its relevance? Why did you bring it up?

If it was, I suck at making arguments.

2. Nowhere did indicate "therefore one should be Catholic".

That seemed to be the point: God makes people do good, therefore convert to Catholicism.

3. I didn't make that statement; an african priest did.

Wellhe didn't post it; you did.

One could even say that I might disagree with his interpretation and still believe in the existance of God.

I'm sure you had some reason for bringing it up.

4. If I were to observe such a thing happen, it wouldn't just be assumed.

How would you observe such a thing?

Like I said, you assume too much. How about talking to me, rather then what you think you know about us poor ol religious folk.

I am talking to you. I'm responding directly to what you posted. If you don't want people to respond to something, then maybe you shouldn't post it.

 

[Quiddity]

Autodidact,

We should take elsewhere. I'm not really sure what exactly you want to talk about though.

 

[sonofskeptish]

Can anyone think of a single scientific theory that excludes God?

If you can, please explain why you think it does.

I don't get the question... it's like asking can anyone think of a single scientific theory that excludes the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[Storm]

Forgive the interruption, I have my priorities.

But I think you were arguing it.

Then it was miscommunication.

As I said to Victor, a relevant god is a testable god. If God has physical effects on the universe, IOW, if God is a theistic god, then he would create signs that point to his existence. Therefore, absence of those signs would point to his non-existence.

1) Relevance has no bearing on this conversation.

2) I find you assumption that just because a God is theistic, He would give us clues to be totally unjustifiable. And without that assumption, you have no argument.

What I'm saying is that a theistic God can potentially be excluded.

The point that I was trying to make is that if you're going to argue that God can never be excluded, then you're arguing for a deistic god.

No, I'm really not.

In that case, I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Physical intervention implies physical evidence. The question of whether a supernatural Creator who intervenes exists is squarely within the purview of science, even if it's not a question that we can definitively answer today.

No, I'm just not trying to shove God into a convenient box that just happens to support my beliefs.

 

[Willamena]

Did you notice how you're assuming your conclusion?

"God moves them" isn't a conclusion, it's a metaphorical image. God, present in everything, is present in them and in their love.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact,

We should take elsewhere.

Why? What's wrong with here?

I'm not really sure what exactly you want to talk about though.

I'm just responding to your posts. You seem to have a problem with that. Why?

 

[Autodidact]

"God moves them" isn't a conclusion, it's a metaphorical image. God, present in everything, is present in them and in their love.

For you, or for Victor?

A metaphorical image that persuades you to become Catholic?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or it could just tell you that we are normal joes who really are driven by there own motives that have nothing to do with actual Church teaching.

Hmm.

I don't want to drag this thread off-topic any more. My point is just that if "God moves people to love their neighbour" is a valid (though vague) argument for the existence of God, then the question of whether people actually are moved to love their neighbour becomes relevant... even before we ask why they might be so moved.

Yeah, there is. Perhaps some non-theist have been praying to the jellyfish god that the day will come when it's self-evident that this is so. Perhaps it's already here? Until then, I'll keep drinking my yummy cool aid.

I wouldn't say it's "self-evident", but it's an established fact that speciation does not occur in lone pairs. I don't know whether your personal beliefs or the beliefs of the Catholic Church depend on this being true, but if they do, then I don't see how they're supportable.

Forgive the interruption, I have my priorities.

No worries.

1) Relevance has no bearing on this conversation.

Of course it does. If belief in a god doesn't come from somewhere, then it's baseless. We exist in the natural universe; any god-belief is either the product of a god's interaction with the natural universe or it's not based in a god at all.

2) I find you assumption that just because a God is theistic, He would give us clues to be totally unjustifiable. And without that assumption, you have no argument.

That's not what I said. IMO, "giving us clues" implies some sort of deliberate action. All my point is that anything that has physical effects can potentially be observed or measured, either directly or indirectly.

No, I'm really not.

Aren't you arguing that science will never exclude God?

 

[Storm]

Of course it does. If belief in a god doesn't come from somewhere, then it's baseless. We exist in the natural universe; any god-belief is either the product of a god's interaction with the natural universe or it's not based in a god at all.

Well, of course it comes from somewhere, even if that "somewhere" is certifiable delusion.

But the topic isn't justifying belief.

That's not what I said. IMO, "giving us clues" implies some sort of deliberate action. All my point is that anything that has physical effects can potentially be observed or measured, either directly or indirectly.

Ah, I misunderstood. I agree with this, I just don't agree that we can tell the difference.

Aren't you arguing that science will never exclude God?

I don't know about "will never." Certainly doesn't currently.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Of course. Post #59:

I read there:

A supernatural Creator. ID is Chrsitianity (though other Abrahamics have jumped on the bandwagon), whether they admit it or not, so no. Interventionist.... hadn't considered that. To say no would make it specifically deistic though, so I suppose we should go with yes.

So any "alien" from outer space works as a theistic God?

I do, as well as its flaw.

We can, of course, invent other unfalsifiable concepts. However, I don't believe they're comparable. God was not simply invented to prove a point of philosophy, nor for any other reason. God has evolved with us. It's one of the hallmarks of our sapience. Right or wrong, to compare it to flights of fantasty and teapots simply demosnstrates a superficial understanding of the phenomenon.

I think you err. The reason why God or a teapot was invented is not a good foundation for evaluating the claims themselves.
If you are not in agreement with my analogy using "known invented" things to "proove a point" we might just as well ask the same question and replace the teapot with "zeus" or "budda" or "Wotan" or "fairies" (which by the way were believed in till the last century in Britain for example).
None of those was invented just to proove a philosophical point. Yet all share the same problem that God has (and the teapot).
The reason why people like the teapot is because it is so extreme in showing the flaw of the idea.

See my objection to mball upthread. That's not really a God-concept, it's doctrine. There's a difference.

I agree that there is a difference between a definition of God (as a being) and the belief in certain acts he/she/it has done. But i wouldnt simply say that a doctrine is different from a concept. Sometimes one thing is basis for the other.
And what remains if you strip a religion of all supposed doctrines?
Some "abstract" God that nobody can say anything about?

I'm sick of the first. You didn't finish the second.

Are morals "absolute" in the sense of independend of God?
Is he per se allways morally good?
Does he have a choice in his acts?
...

An inaccurate statement. Science does not consider the supernatural. Maybe it's there and maybe it ain't. If it is, science it is wholly beyond the capacity of science.

We obviously follow different definitions of science.
Science is the study of the laws of nature.
These however by definition can't be broken.
For science no being beyond the natural realm exists.

Unless there's a supernatural soul.

That doesn't make a difference.

"Greater" is unknown. There is a level of reality unimaginable to us populated by roth ("living Godiverses"). However, "God" refers to OUR roth, which is currently the entirety of our reality.

So God is just some superpowerfull alien being that has us in his stomach so to speak?

You speak too soon, the problem of consciousness is far from solved. Yours is but one hypothesis.

I didnt want to sound as if i said it had been solved. I only say that it simply is the current status of research. I have not seen any theory that explains human behaviour better.

 

[Storm]

I read there:

So any "alien" from outer space works as a theistic God?

No, aliens would be natural beings.

I think you err. The reason why God or a teapot was invented is not a good foundation for evaluating the claims themselves.
If you are not in agreement with my analogy using "known invented" things to "proove a point" we might just as well ask the same question and replace the teapot with "zeus" or "budda" or "Wotan" or "fairies" (which by the way were believed in till the last century in Britain for example).
None of those was invented just to proove a philosophical point. Yet all share the same problem that God has (and the teapot).

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Unless you can remind me how it's relevant? (I did look, but it's early and I didn't look very hard. )

The reason why people like the teapot is because it is so extreme in showing the flaw of the idea.

Actually, I quite like the teapot and similar arguments, when they're not pushed beyond their capacity. They're beautiful (often funny) justifications of non-belief. That's it, though. They fail when misused to advocate non-belief.

I agree that there is a difference between a definition of God (as a being) and the belief in certain acts he/she/it has done. But i wouldnt simply say that a doctrine is different from a concept. Sometimes one thing is basis for the other.
And what remains if you strip a religion of all supposed doctrines?
Some "abstract" God that nobody can say anything about?

Yeah, it seemed so simple when I thought of it. Not so much, turns out. The truth is, I didn't want this to turn into yet another evolution thread.

Are morals "absolute" in the sense of independend of God?

No, but not in the sense of God handing down edicts from on high. NOTHING is independent of God, because we're part of God. We can no more defy its will than your hand can rise up to strangle you.

However, "God's will" encompasses our individual wills.

Is he per se allways morally good?

No, God hasn't got this morality thing figured out, itself. That's what humans are for.

Does he have a choice in his acts?

Yes.

We obviously follow different definitions of science.

Do we? Let's see:

Science is the study of the laws of nature.

Agreed.

These however by definition can't be broken.

For myself, agreed. However, if the supernatural exists (which I do not believe), then the laws of nature are not unbreakable.

For science no being beyond the natural realm exists.

That's due to the limitations of science, though, not the (non)existence of the supernatural.

That doesn't make a difference.

Of course it does. If there exists a supernatural seat of the personality that survives death to frolick in the clouds, then the lack of a brain is no problem.

So God is just some superpowerfull alien being that has us in his stomach so to speak?

A humble request: while I don't mind my beliefs being treated with irreverence, I do ask that you get to understand them first, for simple clarity. I have no idea whether I need to correct this or not.

I didnt want to sound as if i said it had been solved. I only say that it simply is the current status of research. I have not seen any theory that explains human behaviour better.

OK. I just look at the current state of knowledge and find delighted bafflement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For myself, agreed. However, if the supernatural exists (which I do not believe), then the laws of nature are not unbreakable.

Not sure whether this is getting into more things you don't believe, but how would we tell the difference between what is "natural" but unknown to us and what is "supernatural"?

Would the supernatural obey rules as well? Maybe not the same rules as the "laws of nature", but rules nonetheless?

Of course it does. If there exists a supernatural seat of the personality that survives death to frolick in the clouds, then the lack of a brain is no problem.

That's a pretty big "if", IMO. I've seen enough of the effects of physical, natural things on the personality of people to conclude that whatever the "seat of the personality" is, it's susceptible to change through things like disease, injury, drugs and the physical effects of age. This suggests to me that this "seat" is not supernatural.

 

[Storm]

Not sure whether this is getting into more things you don't believe,

Yeah, we're approaching the limits of my ability to play devil's advocate.

but how would we tell the difference between what is "natural" but unknown to us and what is "supernatural"?

That's what I keep asking.

Would the supernatural obey rules as well? Maybe not the same rules as the "laws of nature", but rules nonetheless?

People seem to think so.... Me, I dunno. The concept makes no sense to me.

That's a pretty big "if", IMO. I've seen enough of the effects of physical, natural things on the personality of people to conclude that whatever the "seat of the personality" is, it's susceptible to change through things like disease, injury, drugs and the physical effects of age. This suggests to me that this "seat" is not supernatural.

Agreed.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

No, aliens would be natural beings.

Not if they were from "outer" space meaning outside of the continuum we can see.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Unless you can remind me how it's relevant? (I did look, but it's early and I didn't look very hard. )

Actually, I quite like the teapot and similar arguments, when they're not pushed beyond their capacity. They're beautiful (often funny) justifications of non-belief. That's it, though. They fail when misused to advocate non-belief.

I was not "advocating" non-belief. Actually "non-belief" is not a term i think to be valid at all. The argument is made to show the limits and and the consequences of putting a burdon of "disproove" somewhere.
If you say (as i understand you did) that you couldn't ever exclude him then of course this is similar to the teapot example or the one about Zeus or a pantheorn of Gods. You couldn't disproove those either be they invented on purpose to demonstrate the problem or be they actually believed figures of the past (or now).
Of course you can't disproove "all" Gods, you will actually have have problems with most Gods.
If that is what you rely on then as i said it is obvious that i would have to agree that (most) God(s) is(are) not excluded by science.
However that doesn't get you far.
Neither does it follow that these Gods exist nor is it of any practical use.
Because the disproove of something is equally impossible for any such "God"-something. And surely nobody believes in all such nondisproovable things.
The statement "science doesnt exclude it" in such cases doesnt really have any practical value then.

No, but not in the sense of God handing down edicts from on high. NOTHING is independent of God, because we're part of God. We can no more defy its will than your hand can rise up to strangle you.

However, "God's will" encompasses our individual wills.

Is this now classical theism or your view?

No, God hasn't got this morality thing figured out, itself. That's what humans are for.

It seems to me a great contradiction what you say here. So God is neither morally good nor morally bad? He has no clue? And while he hasn't figured out morality he tells us what morality is through for example his scriptures/divine orders/inspirations? (again: we speak about classical theism)

Yes.

So he can be morally evil?

For myself, agreed. However, if the supernatural exists (which I do not believe), then the laws of nature are not unbreakable.

My first question of course would be then what exactly constitutes the supernatural as opposed to the natural?

That's due to the limitations of science, though, not the (non)existence of the supernatural.

Apart of the question what the supernatural might actually be you exactly make my point. By mere definition already science excludes it. Its not just that it doesnt "include" it.

Of course it does. If there exists a supernatural seat of the personality that survives death to frolick in the clouds, then the lack of a brain is no problem.

No. Even if a soul existed and even if that soul survived your death it would not be you. You die. It would take a bit to explain that but as a hint: think about what that soul might be and what it would represent of "you".

A humble request: while I don't mind my beliefs being treated with irreverence, I do ask that you get to understand them first, for simple clarity. I have no idea whether I need to correct this or not.

The smiley had a purpose.
If I understood you correctly then you say that there are realms inside some super realm. One of those realms is God and we are in him. The realm in which God is, we cant see or know about. Hence my analogy. It compares to lets say a cell in a body that lives in yet another world.

OK. I just look at the current state of knowledge and find delighted bafflement.

I look at experiments and am baffled at the very simple ways that you can alter peoples consciousness by mere biological/chemical reactions.

 

[Storm]

This is getting rather confused....

Not if they were from "outer" space meaning outside of the continuum we can see.

What difference does that make?

I was not "advocating" non-belief.

My mistake.

If that is what you rely on then as i said it is obvious that i would have to agree that (most) God(s) is(are) not excluded by science.
However that doesn't get you far.

Well, my only goal in this thread is to argue that science is neutral. I'm not advocating belief.

Is this now classical theism or your view?

That's my own belief, sorry.

It seems to me a great contradiction what you say here. So God is neither morally good nor morally bad? He has no clue? And while he hasn't figured out morality he tells us what morality is through for example his scriptures/divine orders/inspirations? (again: we speak about classical theism)

Nonono, I wasn't speaking of theism at all there.

So he can be morally evil?

There's a possibility. I have faith it will choose something good, though.

My first question of course would be then what exactly constitutes the supernatural as opposed to the natural?

The supernatural is unbound by, even in defiance of natural law. If you're asking what that would look like, I don't know.

Apart of the question what the supernatural might actually be you exactly make my point. By mere definition already science excludes it. Its not just that it doesnt "include" it.

Howso?

No. Even if a soul existed and even if that soul survived your death it would not be you. You die. It would take a bit to explain that but as a hint: think about what that soul might be and what it would represent of "you".

That's not the typical concept, though.

If I understood you correctly then you say that there are realms inside some super realm. One of those realms is God and we are in him. The realm in which God is, we cant see or know about. Hence my analogy. It compares to lets say a cell in a body that lives in yet another world.

OK, excellent. yes, it's very similar.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

This is getting rather confused....

What difference does that make?

Well if a theistic God would just be a being from outside this continuum, then it could be any "normal species" that exists in another continuum and created this continuum.
As analogy: For a microworld created in a lab the scientist who created it would be God.
In my view a theistic God is not defined as such a thing. Its not just a creator that resides outside of this continuum and occationally does something here.
Most theists tend to see God as an absolute and allencompassing creator, transcending this world and with nothing beyond it. Not some kind of supernatural creature that might just have experimented in a lab so to speak.

Well, my only goal in this thread is to argue that science is neutral. I'm not advocating belief.

I do not know what else to say. If you insist on the excludes as disproove analogy issue then as said before i would formally have to agree. i do not think it is a fair analogy nor does it have any practical value.
Creationism for example also is not "excluded" by science according to that strategy of arguing.

The supernatural is unbound by, even in defiance of natural law. If you're asking what that would look like, I don't know.

In my view this is just semantics.
If the supernatural is bound by something that we might call "supernatural laws" then it automatically becomes "nature".
Let us for example take your belief.
If God is just participant in a superdimension like we are beings in this dimension, then God in my view is only a being and not God. Most theists wouldnt agree that your God is what they would expect God to be.

Howso?

Science rules out the supernatural by studying something which is defined to be the only existing thing.. nature.

That's not the typical concept, though.

I didn't actually present one did I?
But anyway... what is your objection to what you think i meant?

OK, excellent. yes, it's very similar.

I already doubted my highschool english

 

[Tiapan]

What appears common amongst most religions and its strongest argument seems to be that of "the creation". Wow look at the universe, how complex it is, I couldn't make it, so A GOD (or other super intelligence) must have done it.

If the universe is rotating as some current observations indicate, then it has angular momentum. Extrapolating back 13.7BY, the big bang protouniverse must have been spinning very fast. Thats a lot of inertia and angular momentum. Conservation of angular momentum is a law of natural physics. Remember the spinning ice skater in High School Physics.

So where did all that momentum come from, a GOD?

One solution that is possibly explains it
Could it be the legacy of a pre-Big Bang massive object, such as a previous spinning universe's Big Crunch. A closed universe. Thus the universe is a continuous expansion, contraction, expansion, contraction ad infinitum. No beginning, no end, no need for a creator. There was no beginning to create.

Present evidence contradicts this, suggesting the universe is a slightly open or flat. However if the universe is closed the explaination for the observations may be they do not include the massive amounts of gamma radiation emitted in the latest Big Bang. Where m=E/(c^2)=hv/(c^2) may be the missing mass as its energy equivalent. Dark matter is still to be defined although most agree it exists.

The long and the short of it is that if the universe spins then that may be the evidence of a pre-BB universe. If this is a serial process then we really do not need a god as a natural process could adequately describe the observations.

Does this prove that god does not exist? Is a Jabberwocky brillig green? All I can say if this hypothesis is correct then one of the biggest arguments for a God could be dismissed as a natural phenomena.

Cheers