Do We Really Have To Choose?

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Um... the second was clarification of the first. How can you disagree with one and not the other.

As you yourself point out, that depends on which God your talking about. As I should have clarified from the beginning, I was going with generic theism.

I do NOT mean this insulting but could you actually tell me what "generic theism" is?
I haven't so far found any single defintion of "a" God by any religion so far that they (the followers) were willing to stick to till the end.
In my view when we speak about God we most often speak about a "personal", "all powerfull", allknowing" Being that intervenes here and has created all this circus especially for us.

So i would of course argue from / against that perspective. I see that you are not a normal theist but a pantheist so i can understand that you would argue differently.
We need to get on common grounds before we continue.

My statements all were meant in relation to a theistic god as proposed by the ahbramitic religons.

I disagree with this. If we accept the specific meaning of "exclusion" I'm using (which you did), God can never be excluded, for the same reasons you give. We have no way of knowing if it was serendipity or the physical manifestation of supernatural agency.

You seem to follow along the lines of the flying-teapot challenge. Well if so then of course i would formally have to agree. But then again you would have to realize that it is impossible to disproove (and thus exclude) nearly anything if not for pure logical reasons. Could you name me a single scientific theory that excludes invisible/undetectable intelligent unicorns? Or one that excludes a pantheon of Gods?
See my point?

The rest is rather off-topic.

Actually i think it fits. I am not going into details, just restating my point. If you are interested i will open new threads for them.
I think that depending on the definition of God you can disproove/exclude God.
For some it works, for some it doesn't.

But you probably don't want to get me started on Literalism.

Mind that i explicitly limited the definition of God to that one which follows literal interpretation. I didnt state that this would be the only valid one or that no other exists. I only mentioned that THIS particular definition is excludable.

I have yet to encounter such an argument that wasn't easily destroyed.

Allknowingness versus human free will (depending on the definition of allknowingness)
Questions about absolute morality along with Gods free
just to name too.

Assuming the afterlife is supernatural, how in the world do you think it acheives that?

Already forgotten that in science there is no "supernatural"?
Science is based on the presmisse that such a think doesnt exist. It excludes it. It operates only in the natural realm.
Apart of that it should be easy to speak about memory, brain functions, character and behaviour and relate that to the problems we would have in an afterlife.

Anyway lets return to your statement of belief. I am not sure if you shouldnt open a thread for that as it seems an interesting (but different) topic.

It's a little more complicated than that.
1) I believe God is finite, bound by the cosmos, and there's something else beyond those borders. Therefore, God is not "everything."
2) I believe the cosmos is a sapient organism, with three primal elements: matter, consciousness, and life force.
The latter point, while beyond the capacity of CURRENT science, is quite falsifiable.

1) So there is something greater than God? Why call God God then and not the greater something?
2) Science would tell you that for all conscious beings we see so far we think that consciousness is nothing else but a manifestation of reactions of matter and energy in our brains.
3) What is that supposed to be?

 

[Storm]

Why is ID specifically Christianity or Abrahamic?

Because it's based on a specific interpretation of Genesis, one of their holy texts.

The main thing is that some scientific theories exclude certain god concepts. When evidence for such things comes out those concepts change to fit the new knowledge. It's like "I believe in this god". Then, years later, science finds something that excludes that god, and so the god takes a different form. In that way, it's impossible for scientific theories to exclude any but the most literalistic, fundamentalist gods.

But those aren't GOD-concepts, they're theories of scriptural interpretation. See above quote about apples and orangutans.

While I had theism in mind, if you can point to any God-concept that science debunks, I'll concede the point. But it has to be the God, not rabid idolatry of scripture.

As for intervention, there's probably no scientific theory, but there have been studies done that show prayer doesn't work.

I have my qualms about that. Assuming a theistic God, these studies could merely show that He's capricious. Or annoyed by attempts to dis/prove Him. Or has a perverse sense of humor. Or... you get the point.

And, as you're well aware, I don't believe in prayer, myself.

 

[Storm]

I do NOT mean this insulting but could you actually tell me what "generic theism" is?

Of course. Post #59:

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.

I haven't so far found any single defintion of "a" God by any religion so far that they (the followers) were willing to stick to till the end.

Well, I must admit that my capacity for devil's advocate has limits. There are reasons, after all, I'm not a theist.

However, if you wish to discuss my own theology in depth, I'd be delighted to do so. And if you can point out any internal flaws, I'd be positively thrilled.

In my view when we speak about God we most often speak about a "personal", "all powerfull", allknowing" Being that intervenes here and has created all this circus especially for us.

Yeah, that's a far cry from my own beliefs.

So i would of course argue from / against that perspective. I see that you are not a normal theist but a pantheist so i can understand that you would argue differently.
We need to get on common grounds before we continue.

For clarity, in this thread, it is my intention to play devil's advocate for theism, as described above.

My statements all were meant in relation to a theistic god as proposed by the ahbramitic religons.

I assumed so.

You seem to follow along the lines of the flying-teapot challenge. Well if so then of course i would formally have to agree. But then again you would have to realize that it is impossible to disproove (and thus exclude) nearly anything if not for pure logical reasons. Could you name me a single scientific theory that excludes invisible/undetectable intelligent unicorns? Or one that excludes a pantheon of Gods?
See my point?

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.

Mind that i explicitly limited the definition of God to that one which follows literal interpretation. I didnt state that this would be the only valid one or that no other exists. I only mentioned that THIS particular definition is excludable.

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

Allknowingness versus human free will (depending on the definition of allknowingness)
Questions about absolute morality along with Gods free
just to name too.

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

Already forgotten that in science there is no "supernatural"?

Science is based on the presmisse that such a think doesnt exist. It excludes it. It operates only in the natural realm.

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.

Apart of that it should be easy to speak about memory, brain functions, character and behaviour and relate that to the problems we would have in an afterlife.

Unless there's a supernatural soul.

Anyway lets return to your statement of belief. I am not sure if you shouldnt open a thread for that as it seems an interesting (but different) topic.

See my sig.

1) So there is something greater than God? Why call God God then and not the greater something?

"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.

2) Science would tell you that for all conscious beings we see so far we think that consciousness is nothing else but a manifestation of reactions of matter and energy in our brains.

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

3) What is that supposed to be?

What is what supposed to be?

 

[MSizer]

Irrelevant. Please answer the question.

I did answer the question. I can re-word it for you if you like.

"Yes. Every on that I know of."

 

[Storm]

I did answer the question. I can re-word it for you if you like.

"Yes. Every on that I know of."

Sweetie, it might help if you reviewed the rest of the thread. My point is that scienc neither includes nor excludes God.

 

[MSizer]

Sweetie, it might help if you reviewed the rest of the thread. My point is that scienc neither includes nor excludes God.

I see that, and I did read through it. My point is that science does indeed exclude god. To say that a theory doen't exclude god just because it doen't include god is wrong IMO. You could say that about anything. The theory photosynthesis doesn't include chocolate pudding, therefore it excludes chocolate pudding. If you wanted to manufacture the process of photosynthesis in a lab, you would need light and various organic materials, but you would have to exclude chocolate pudding, or the or the process would fail completetly. God is the same thing. God is an imaginary ingredient which only serves to interfere with science. Every single scientific experiment and theory must exclude god in order to be correct.

 

[Storm]

I see that, and I did read through it. My point is that science does indeed exclude god. To say that a theory doen't exclude god just because it doen't include god is wrong IMO. You could say that about anything. The theory photosynthesis doesn't include chocolate pudding, therefore it excludes chocolate pudding. If you wanted to manufacture the process of photosynthesis in a lab, you would need light and various organic materials, but you would have to exclude chocolate pudding, or the or the process would fail completetly. God is the same thing. God is an imaginary ingredient which only serves to interfere with science. Every single scientific experiment and theory must exclude god in order to be correct.

If there's a term you prefer, substitute that. But if you wish to argue, kindly argue the idea and not the semantics.

 

[MSizer]

If there's a term you prefer, substitute that. But if you wish to argue, kindly argue the idea and not the semantics.

It's not about semantics Storm. It's about fact. Science and god are fundamentally in opposition in every single way. Just because some people mistakenly think they accept both is not relevant. My point is purely black or white, not gray. Science is not being practiced if God is considered part of the equation. That's not to say that a scientific endeavour could not be undertaken to try to prove / disprove god's existence, but none has ever been done successfully to prove even god's existence. Therefore, until god is shown to even possibly exist, science can not be practiced with any inclusion of god. Scientific theories must exclude god, because the practice of science is to discover the universe, partially by stripping away false conceptions.

I won't continue to argue beyond this, because if we're still at a stalemate, I don't think I can do anything but get in your way in this thread.

 

[Storm]

Science and god are fundamentally in opposition in every single way.

No, they're not.

Just because some people mistakenly think they accept both is not relevant.

Thanks for the condescension.

My point is purely black or white, not gray.

Because that always works so well?

I won't continue to argue beyond this, because if we're still at a stalemate, I don't think I can do anything but get in your way in this thread.

Your call.

 

[Magic Man]

Because it's based on a specific interpretation of Genesis, one of their holy texts.

Is it? I never thought of it as limited to Abrahamic faiths.

But those aren't GOD-concepts, they're theories of scriptural interpretation. See above quote about apples and orangutans.

While I had theism in mind, if you can point to any God-concept that science debunks, I'll concede the point. But it has to be the God, not rabid idolatry of scripture.

Why are they not god concepts?

Well, the theory of evolution and the big bang theory debunk a literal Christian god concept. That's the easy one.

I think you're putting the goal posts way too far apart here. The ability to change a god concept to fit whatever we find out about the world is what makes it impossible to exclude all gods with scientific theories. It used to be that almost everyone believed in the Bible literally. As we found out more and more about the world, that interpretation changed, and the god with it.

Just like you can say "Well, the reason you can't see the pegasus in my back yard is because it's invisible and intangible. It can only be detected by those who know how to see it".

I have my qualms about that. Assuming a theistic God, these studies could merely show that He's capricious. Or annoyed by attempts to dis/prove Him. Or has a perverse sense of humor. Or... you get the point.

And, as you're well aware, I don't believe in prayer, myself.

See my point above. You can certainly rationalize anything.

 

[Storm]

Is it? I never thought of it as limited to Abrahamic faiths.

Really?

Why are they not god concepts?

Because they say nothing of what God is, only what God (allegedly) did. Does that make sense?

Interventionist is an element of a God concept. However, any specific intervention, like a miracle, is attendant mythology. For purposes of this thread, I'm focusing on the former.

Well, the theory of evolution and the big bang theory debunk a literal Christian god concept. That's the easy one.

I don't think they do, though, for the reasons given.

I think you're putting the goal posts way too far apart here. The ability to change a god concept to fit whatever we find out about the world is what makes it impossible to exclude all gods with scientific theories. It used to be that almost everyone believed in the Bible literally. As we found out more and more about the world, that interpretation changed, and the god with it.

That's precisely what I'm trying NOT to do, though. I'm trying to keep it to basic concepts so that we can discuss it in a meaningful way, rather than get sidetracked by countless mythological minutia.

Just like you can say "Well, the reason you can't see the pegasus in my back yard is because it's invisible and intangible. It can only be detected by those who know how to see it".

You know me better than that.

See my point above. You can certainly rationalize anything.

It's not about rationalization. Experimentation requires a measure of control, which I believe was lacking in the studies you cited. Prayer, if it works at all (which I do not believe), works according to God's whim. Science cannot account for anything so capricious.

 

[MSizer]

No, they're not.

Yes they are. Tell me in chemistry where we include god. Tell me in biology where we include god. Tell me in mathematics where we include god..................

Thanks for the condescension.

I think you need to re-think which among us is being cruel. You asked for opinions and I gave you mine, purely honestly, with no intention to offend. There is simply no polite way to say "you have a false belief in something that is completely irrational and you use cognitive dissonance to comfort yourself about it's conflict with objectivity".

 

[Storm]

Yes they are. Tell me in chemistry where we include god. Tell me in biology where we include god. Tell me in mathematics where we include god..................

Strawman.

I think you need to re-think which among us is being cruel.

Um, neither.

You asked for opinions and I gave you mine, purely honestly, with no intention to offend. There is simply no polite way to say "you have a false beleif in something that is completely irrational and you use cognitive dissonance to comfort yourself about it's conflict with objectivity".

And it's my opinion that you are merely justifying your own bias, at best.

BTW, the reason my last post to you was so curt was that you said you were bowing out. I didn't see the point of going into detail with someone who wasn't interested. So, do you want to have a debate or not?

 

[MSizer]

Strawman.

Um, neither.

And it's my opinion that you are merely justifying your own bias, at best.

BTW, the reason my last post to you was so curt was that you said you were bowing out. I didn't see the point of going into detail with someone who wasn't interested. So, do you want to have a debate or not?

When you said "your call" it took that as saying "it's up to you". My decision to bow out was not due to lack of interest, it was out of respect, as it seemed to me that we had reached a stalemate, and since it was your thread, I didn't want to interfere with your pursuit of the subject. When you replied (with statements with which I strongly disagree) I decided to take you up on what I thought was your permission to jump back in. And I neve use strawmans - perhaps I may accidentally use a strawman unintentionally due to a lack of understanding, but I never ever purposely use them. What the hell would be the point in debating anything if distractions are used. If you want to challenge my opinion on the matter, I'm happy to go on, but I've pretty much made my case I think, so unless you wish to challenge me, it would be more polite to step aside, as I don't have anything much else to offer on the matter.

 

[Storm]

When you said "your call" it took that as saying "it's up to you". My decision to bow out was not due to lack of interest, it was out of respect, as it seemed to me that we had reached a stalemate, and since it was your thread, I didn't want to interfere with your pursuit of the subject.

Well, that is what I meant, but I thought you'd already made up your mind that you didn't want to pursue it.

When you replied (with statements with which I strongly disagree) I decided to take you up on what I thought was your permission to jump back in.

FIne with me. You're the only person who's really presented the other side, I think, and it IS a debate thread.

And I neve use strawmans - perhaps I may accidentally use a strawman unintentionally due to a lack of understanding, but I never ever purposely use them. What the hell would be the point in debating anything if distractions are used.

Well, I've already said that science doesn't include God, either, and you responded by arguing against science including God. I'm not sure how you could've misunderstood such a plain statement.

If you want to challenge my opinion on the matter, I'm happy to go on, but I've pretty much made my case I think, so unless you wish to challenge me, it would be more polite to step aside, as I don't have anything much else to offer on the matter.

Look, I'm happy to debate this, just make up your mind.

 

[Baydwin]

I can't think of a single scientific theory that includes god. Where is god in plate tectonics? Where is god in disease transmission? Where is god in molecular theory? I can't think of a single theory that includes god. Even the ID "theory" which in fact doesn't qualify as a theory, is addmitted by it's own proponents to not necessarily include god.

Actually there is one theory that I've heard mentioned in documentaries on theoretical physics which has a god-like aspect, the theory that our universe is a simulated reality, part of some alien designers experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
It's a theory in the same way that the multiverse theory, gravity leakage, wormholes etc are theories, in that they're entirely on paper.

 

[Magic Man]

Really?

Yeah, I mean, obviously it's being used by Christians to try to get literalist interpretations into science classes, but the actual idea of ID doesn't strike me as necessarily Christian or Abrhamic.

Because they say nothing of what God is, only what God (allegedly) did. Does that make sense?

Frankly, it doesn't. That's how you describe something. You can either assign an adjective, or explain what it does. Either way, it's describing what it is. Saying "God did this" is a way of describing what God is.

Interventionist is an element of a God concept. However, any specific intervention, like a miracle, is attendant mythology. For purposes of this thread, I'm focusing on the former.

I'm not following.

I don't think they do, though, for the reasons given.

Really? I'm not sure how you could see them as not debunking that god. That god supposedly made everything as we see it today. Those theories say that's not how it happened.

That's precisely what I'm trying NOT to do, though. I'm trying to keep it to basic concepts so that we can discuss it in a meaningful way, rather than get sidetracked by countless mythological minutia.

How do you keep it that basic? If you want to keep it that basic, you'd have to go to deism.

You know me better than that.

I was just saying that every god concept can change to fit what we find out about the world. It's not that they're not excluded from scientific theories. It's that they change to fit the new model with those theories.

It's not about rationalization. Experimentation requires a measure of control, which I believe was lacking in the studies you cited. Prayer, if it works at all (which I do not believe), works according to God's whim. Science cannot account for anything so capricious.

It's still rationalization, though. This was the point of the part about the pegasus. you could make any claim you want. If prayer works the way many people say it does, then the results of those experiments would be different. Accounting for the lack of those results with maybes is just rationalization.

 

[MSizer]

Actually there is one theory that I've heard mentioned in documentaries on theoretical physics which has a god-like aspect, the theory that our universe is a simulated reality, part of some alien designers experiment Simulated reality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's a theory in the same way that the multiverse theory, gravity leakage, wormholes etc are theories, in that they're entirely on paper.

I wasn't aware of that. But regarding the other ones (multiverse and so on) are those really theories or hypotheses? I thought those were all completely speculative. Yes? No? If they are purely speculative, then I'm not so sure they're theories, but rather hypotheses. I'm not a physicist though, and they may be regarded as more concrete than I thought they had been.

 

[Storm]

Yeah, I mean, obviously it's being used by Christians to try to get literalist interpretations into science classes, but the actual idea of ID doesn't strike me as necessarily Christian or Abrhamic.

Yeah, but that's just political camoflage, and we all know it.

Frankly, it doesn't. That's how you describe something. You can either assign an adjective, or explain what it does. Either way, it's describing what it is. Saying "God did this" is a way of describing what God is.

I'm not following.

Really? I'm not sure how you could see them as not debunking that god. That god supposedly made everything as we see it today. Those theories say that's not how it happened.

This seemed so simple when I thought of it.

Anyway, I see it as like you compared to what people say about you. I tell someone you had a fight with your wife. Maybe you did and maybe you didn't, but it has no bearing on the fact that you're married.

It's just that trying to address a literal interpretation of various mythologies has been done to death, and it's pointless anyway.

How do you keep it that basic? If you want to keep it that basic, you'd have to go to deism.

I think it can be done, it just takes a little more creativity.

I was just saying that every god concept can change to fit what we find out about the world. It's not that they're not excluded from scientific theories. It's that they change to fit the new model with those theories.

I'm sorry, I misinterpreted.

It's still rationalization, though. This was the point of the part about the pegasus. you could make any claim you want. If prayer works the way many people say it does, then the results of those experiments would be different. Accounting for the lack of those results with maybes is just rationalization.

I don't think it is. "Prayer" is asking God to do something for you, it's by definition entirely dependent on whim. That's what makes it such a prime example of science overreaching. There are too many variables that the scientific method just can't account for.

 

[MSizer]

"Prayer" is asking God to do something for you, it's by definition entirely dependent on whim. That's what makes it such a prime example of science overreaching. There are too many variables that the scientific method just can't account for.

I disagree. The tempelton foundation was more than happy to put up the money for the great prayer experiment. There's no doubt in my mind that they would have felt otherwise could they have foreseen the results. The royal family should be the healthiest people on the planet given the amount of prayers said on their behalf. The Rawandan genocide would never have happened if prayer were effective. Nothing fails like prayer, not because science can't prove or disprove it, but becuase the random element lies not in prayer itself but in the hindsight of the person who believes in it and moves the goalpost as is necessary to continue rationalizing faith in prayer. I find it such a horrible insult to 9 year old rape victims when I hear a person say "I prayed to make my tomatoes grow". Yeah, great, nice work god, we'll enjoy those juicy tomatoes tonight while Jane down the street has a forced rendez-vous with her drunk uncle. Next time do me a favour when I pray for my tomatoes and strike me with ligthening and them move on to helping Jane please.