God can't explain anything and there's no rational way to demonstrate otherwise

[serp777]

Perhaps God is the Mystery? In the biblical story, God retreats further into the background the further we progress into the story, until we come to “God-as-Human” in the gospels. As we discover more about the world, the mystery retreats deeper, and is always elusive. We will never know “all there is to know.”

I don’t see that as “explanation,” though, so much as it is “a way of ascribing meaning to what we don’t fully understand.”

Right, that's exactly why God can't be an explanation for morality, the origin of the universe, the laws of logic, etc, even though these are often attributed to God. If God isn't an explanation for anything then you really can't appeal to God for anything other than making assertions. You couldn't say, for instance, that God explains the Resurrection of Jesus. SO once you admit that God isn't an explanation for anything in reality, and also can't explain anything abstract, then you can't be rationally justified in accepting the proposition that God definitely exists.

 

[serp777]

I don't think any theist rejects the notion of using science to explain the nature of the universe, or its intricate physical laws on which it abides by. Yes, ancient pagan religions explained natural phenomenon using the concept of gods, such as Zeus sending down lightning and so on. Now with modern science, we know that this is caused by sudden electrostatic discharges that occur when conditions become favourable in the atmosphere. No theist denies this.

Science strives to answer some of the questions that lie in this natural world, whereas religion focuses more on the metaphysical world, which is outside the boundaries of science. The two need not be exclusive. Of course, that is not to say disputes do not occur from time to time, and I think it's worthwhile hearing the arguments from both sides.

Full video:

Well hang on, a ton of theists like Frank Turek, Matt Slick, Blake Guinta all believe that GOd serves as the best explanation for things like the resurrection, morality, the laws of logic, etc. So I completely disagree with you--religion absolutely focuses on the physical word, or focuses on it indirectly by trying to explain the laws of logic and the consistency of nature. Also, how does God explain any metaphysical or philosophical things?

 

[serp777]

God is not explaining. God is to be explained. There are so many ways that your imagine can tackle it that you realize it could work. God is a part of it. The question is whether the Universe from nothing or the Universe working with God.

God is to be explained? How do you explain God? Most theists argue that there is no explanation behind God.

The question is whether the Universe from nothing or the Universe working with God.

A false dilemma. There are models of an eternal multiverse. Also the idea of nothing is problematic. For example, if you have no laws of physics or laws of logic, then anything goes and anything can happen, including universes. Its likely that nothing is impossible and is a fundamentally contradictory conceot.

 

[serp777]

Explanations and causes must have an origin even if it is themselves that are the source. Reality is the cause of reality. Penrose and Hawking proved that time had a beginning in the early 60's. If reality is dual, spirit and matter, Cartesian duality, then the origin of the universe may have been an instance of something beyond the physical. I think your misconception lies in the fact that since we cannot see God, his mystery fills gaps (as in God of the gaps) and replaces knowledge with appeal to authority and education with ignorance. The origin of the universe is metaphysical, since science breaks down at that point. It has been said that the container of the physical must be non-physical, since it can exist in a higher dimension to accommodate the physical.

Explanations and causes must have an origin even if it is themselves that are the source.

I don't know if that's true at all. How do you prove this?

I think your misconception lies in the fact that since we cannot see God, his mystery fills gaps (as in God of the gaps) and replaces knowledge with appeal to authority and education with ignorance.

Right and that's totally problematic.

Explanations and causes must have an origin even if it is themselves that are the source.

Saying that time had a beginning is a misnomer. Beginning is always relative to some other time. So saying beginning to a time when there was no time before is nonsensical. We really can't say until we have a theory of everything.

The origin of the universe is metaphysical, since science breaks down at that point. It has been said that the container of the physical must be non-physical, since it can exist in a higher dimension to accommodate the physical.

You're making a lot of unprovable claims. What does it mean to say the universe is metaphysical? What does "science breaks down" mean? How do you know the answers to these questions? Seems like nobody can know the answers to these questions currently. Maybe a theory of everything will make science perfectly valid there. And what do you mean by it must be non physical? A higher dimension would be physical, I would submit, since it follows certain natural laws. Also the universe may be infinite so saying that the universe has a container could be false.

 

[serp777]

Not the best definition I have ever heard.
I think there may be a few old threads on the subject that defined it much better.
Suffice it to say for the moment that magick is turning thoughts into things.
This means that God thought everything into existence and maintains everything the same way, by thinking about it.
This means of course that God explains everything.

That's a meaningless assertion. You haven't explained a thing. We explain things in terms of other things we understand and by explaining a mystery by appealing to another mystery, you've gotten us nowhere in terms of providing an valid explanation. And you've also contradicted yourself because if God thought everything into existence then he must have thought himself into existence which leads to a causal loop. And I think my definition of magic is fine and is perfectly serviceable for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[serp777]

That is an unfair accusation, and this accusation is applicable to all areas of knowledge, Newton solved the mystery of “why apples fall from trees” by appealing to other higher mystery “Gravity” and it was (and still is) perfectly valid to say “gravity causes apples to fall, but I don’t know where did gravity came from”

All mysteries are solved by appealing to other mysteries, all answers

But the scientific investigation of gravity revealed what it was and thus removed the mystery. The investigation showed us that gravity was a force that brought objects together according to certain physical laws. Once that determination was made, it lost the status of mystery.That's when we were rationally justified in believing in gravity. At that point gravity was understood and its explanatory power could be used to explain other phenomena or causes. With God you can't do anything like that.

gravity causes apples to fall, but I don’t know where did gravity came from

I never said that we need to know the origins of something before we have an explanation. If we can describe what it is and how it works, then it can become an explanation. A car can be explained in terms of combustion in a piston without knowing where the car was created.

 

[serp777]

I think we must first agree whether or not there are mysteries that can be and are worth describing. These mysteries then need to be shown as important.

One mystery I think that is relevant to today's democratic and post-Scientific Rational world is that of free will. Do you agree that the nature of free will is a mystery?

Well many people would submit that free will doesn't exist, or at the very least that we don't have the libertarian free will that theists would generally promote. I don't know if free will is real, but if it is real I think that the operation and complexity of the brain is a sufficient hypothesis.

 

[serp777]

Yes God could in theory be a valid explanation, I can think of two situations in which God can be used as an explanation:

1 If God is logically necessary: for example if you grant that the universe had a cause, then it follows logically and necessarily that the cause of the universe is something supernatural……these doesn’t drives you directly to God,(because something supernatural is not necessarily God) but at least it drives you a step closer to God.

*I define universe as: all the physical/natural world

2 If God is a better explanation than other naturalistic explanations: For example if the theist shows that God is a better explanation for the fine tuning of the universe than your favorite naturalistic explanation, then we are justified in proposing the existence of God.

One can use criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, less adhoc, consistency with previous knowledge, background knowledge etc. in order to determine which explanation is the best.

Perhaps it is impossible to prove or falsify the existence of God, but in theory you can show if there are Good reasons to accept or to deny the existence of God.

If God is logically necessary: for example if you grant that the universe had a cause, then it follows logically and necessarily that the cause of the universe is something supernatural……these doesn’t drives you directly to God,(because something supernatural is not necessarily God) but at least it drives you a step closer to God.

I don't see that as logically necessary at all. The universe may be infinite, or it may be part of an infinite and eternal multiverse, and even if that wasn't the case I don't see why I'd be justified in going to the supernatural. I would just say I didn't know.

I define universe as: all the physical/natural world

And what consists of the physical/natural world. Does the multiverse also fit into that category?

2 If God is a better explanation than other naturalistic explanations: For example if the theist shows that God is a better explanation for the fine tuning of the universe than your favorite naturalistic explanation, then we are justified in proposing the existence of God.

But how is GOd an explanation at all? Asserting that God is the cause of fine tuning isn't an explanation, and we don't go with a supposed God explanation just because we lack a decent naturalistic explanation. That's an argument from ignorance.

Perhaps it is impossible to prove or falsify the existence of God, but in theory you can show if there are Good reasons to accept or to deny the existence of God.

But I don't accept that GOd can be an explanation of anything.

 

[serp777]

It's nothing more than a variation of God as the man in the sky cliché. It implies a misrepresentation of what God is said to be. At least as far as Judaism, Christianity and Islam are concerned.


It was not the Christian who sacrificed children to ensure the rain. Paganism at its most basic is nothing more than the attempt to bargain with natural forces. And I reject this primitive worldview as much as you do. I believe in a rational (but created) world that can be understood not in the capricious elemental spirits of the Greeks, Aztecs and Egyptians. My point, is that I don't see any conflict between Christian theism and our growing understanding of the natural world since Christianity simply doesn't posit a world controlled by spirits. It is true that in previous ages, people were prone to ascribe to the preternatural things we now know to have natural causes but that is in no way a threat to the core idea of monotheism. One, all powerful, uncreated and transcendent God who creates and sustains all things.

Of course, I do also accept the existence of the demonic but that in and of itself isn't relevant to God and what God is.


I don't think the idea of an uncreated reality stretching infinitely back is coherent.


You haven't actually detracted away from God at all though. I agree, there's no Tlaloc demanding you kill your children in exchange for rain. No chariot riding deity pulling the sun across the sky, nor a Zeus to gallivant around, throw lighting bolts and impregnate attractive women. But that has never been the claim of any of the major monotheistic faiths.


Obviously, if one wants to know why it rains then "God" is not an answer. It's true in a sense but not in a useful sense. But God is an explanation for why the world exists, why there is a good and how it relates to the final end of human beings. Whether or not you reject that explanation is up to you, but it is in my view far more coherent that an infinite regress of stuff that expanded at some point and just is by sheer brute fact of it being so.


I'm saying your characterization of what theists believe is wrong. Whether or not theism is correct is beside the point. You clearly don't understand or rather don't want to understand.

I'm saying your characterization of what theists believe is wrong. Whether or not theism is correct is beside the point. You clearly don't understand or rather don't want to understand.

You don't speak for all theists and I can cite many examples of popular theists that use God as an explanation. And I agree it is beside the point as to whether God can serve as an explanation, so what? I think I understand just fine but feel free to actually make an argument that I don't instead of just an assertion.

 

[serp777]

They are questions not assertions. Assertions are statements of fact (def) those with questions marks are viewed as questions.



Question: what do you mean magic shaped the world?

You gotta quote the comments you are referring to. I have no clue where you got magic and explanations of magic in relation to breathing etc from.

Questions: when you say god didn't do it, what comment are you referring to that I said he did?

Are you talking outloud (written brainstorming)?

They are questions not assertions. Assertions are statements of fact (def) those with questions marks are viewed as questions.

This is what he/she said: "Like a deity shaping the world, s spirit overing over the waters?"

It sure looks like an assertion in the first part and the second part is incomprehensible. "Like a deity shaping the world" looks like an assertion about something a God did. I was asking for examples of explanations and thats what it appeared to be.

You gotta quote the comments you are referring to. I have no clue where you got magic and explanations of magic in relation to breathing etc from.

Its not referring to another comment at all. It was clear that "Like a deity shaping the world" was an assertion and so I replaced it with "magic shaped the world" to demonstrate how that wasn't an explanation. His comment did not appear to be a question at all despite the question mark. It looked like it was supposed to be: "Like a deity shaping the world, or how about a spirit hovering over the waters?"

 

[osgart]

I think that scientists who believe in God probably dont use God for natural explanations. They stick to the methodological naturalism for their work. Why should God faith conflict with science?

Only fundamental religion; literalists, have a disabling distortion of reality.

Assuming causes and ideologies probably hinder science more than anything. Whether it be a naturalist assumption or a religious one, those assumptions must be testable to be valid.

Since religion operates in the untestable, naturalism has the advantage in making gains in knowledge.

Most of religion rests on proving intelligent cause to life. And they must do so in full regards to evolution, and the cellular origins of life. If they cant do that then religion will change. It will develope into emergent spirituality or something.

Beyond that religion only operates in what cant be disproved. Yet or ever.

I am amazed at how many rf people want to destroy peoples religious hope in eternal life, and God, or spirit. I can understand wanting to kick mythology out of science. But i cant understand the vehemance toward people who comply with science and still hold religious beliefs and convictions.

 

[serp777]

So let me re-ask


If God cannot be the explanation of the universe, what is the nature of god to which you are describing?

Question not an assertion nor putting words in your mouth.



By god not being an explanation, do you mean a deity (can't be an explanation) or....?



You're telling us about a god that does not exist can't be the explanation of natural phenomena like the universe and breathing (in your other post).

God doesn't exist. So, what god are you referring to? Explain it more so I know the concept of who can't do what.

Ok well your questions more clear, so i can actually answer them. Did you find a google translator from unintelligible to English or something? Not sure how your questions are equivalent to his, but ok.

If God cannot be the explanation of the universe, what is the nature of god to which you are describing?

Because we explain things in terms of other things we understand. Solving a mystery by appealing to another mystery is fallacious. Its equivalent to saying magic explains the universe. Its meaningless and useless. The God i'm referring to is the typical theistic God. This God is typically presumed to be maximally powerful, supernatural, is outside of space and time, is the foundation of morality and the laws of logic, etc. Modern monotheism has a general God definition.

By god not being an explanation, do you mean a deity (can't be an explanation) or....?

A supernatural entity cannot serve as an explanation for anything.

You're telling us about a god that does not exist can't be the explanation of natural phenomena like the universe and breathing (in your other post).

God doesn't exist. So, what god are you referring to? Explain it more so I know the concept of who can't do what.

I'm not quite sure whats so difficult. Most other people understand what i'm saying as well as the general concept of God i'm referring to. I also never said God doesn't exist. I don't know if God exists. I would also say that God can't be an explanation of abstract things like government, morality, or the laws of logic. This question is hypothetical; its saying that the existence of God cannot be an explanation for anything.

 

[Thinking Homer]

Well hang on, a ton of theists like Frank Turek, Matt Slick, Blake Guinta all believe that GOd serves as the best explanation for things like the resurrection, morality, the laws of logic, etc. So I completely disagree with you--religion absolutely focuses on the physical word, or focuses on it indirectly by trying to explain the laws of logic and the consistency of nature. Also, how does God explain any metaphysical or philosophical things?

Well how then do you explain morals based on the naturalistic worldview? If a person decides to divorce their partner after 2 years, is that wrong? On what principles do we base the sacredness of marriage?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is what he/she said: "Like a deity shaping the world, s spirit overing over the waters?"

Yes. I know. I am asking him what does he mean by magic shaping the world.

I am a hard core atheist. I do not know what he means by deity, spirit, and god. It would help if he asked me to clarify not go off of waht he thought were assertions when question marks are specifc are not statemens by definition but a inquirery for information or clarity in a subject.

It sure looks like an assertion in the first part and the second part is incomprehensible. "Like a deity shaping the world" looks like an assertion about something a God did. I was asking for examples of explanations and thats what it appeared to be.

What does he mean by:

Like a deity shaping the world, s spirit overing over the waters?

Just another assertion. Magic shaped the world. If magic is just as sufficient as God for your example, then its probably a bad example​

Does he mean magic (from a deity?) shape the world, a spirit (huh?) over the waters?

Its not referring to another comment at all. It was clear that "Like a deity shaping the world" was an assertion and so I replaced it with "magic shaped the world" to demonstrate how that wasn't an explanation.

Henced above

His comment did not appear to be a question at all despite the question mark. It looked like it was supposed to be: "Like a deity shaping the world, or how about a spirit hovering over the waters?"

Yes. What is a spirit?

These are questions of clarity.

 

[allfoak]

That's a meaningless assertion. You haven't explained a thing. We explain things in terms of other things we understand and by explaining a mystery by appealing to another mystery, you've gotten us nowhere in terms of providing an valid explanation. And you've also contradicted yourself because if God thought everything into existence then he must have thought himself into existence which leads to a causal loop. And I think my definition of magic is fine and is perfectly serviceable for the purposes of this discussion.

Discussion over.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ok well your questions more clear, so i can actually answer them. Did you find a google translator from unintelligible to English or something? Not sure how your questions are equivalent to his, but ok.



Because we explain things in terms of other things we understand. Solving a mystery by appealing to another mystery is fallacious. Its equivalent to saying magic explains the universe. Its meaningless and useless. The God i'm referring to is the typical theistic God. This God is typically presumed to be maximally powerful, supernatural, is outside of space and time, is the foundation of morality and the laws of logic, etc. Modern monotheism has a general God definition.



A supernatural entity cannot serve as an explanation for anything.



I'm not quite sure whats so difficult. Most other people understand what i'm saying as well as the general concept of God i'm referring to. I also never said God doesn't exist. I don't know if God exists. I would also say that God can't be an explanation of abstract things like government, morality, or the laws of logic. This question is hypothetical; its saying that the existence of God cannot be an explanation for anything.

Actually, Im not most. I wasnt raised religious, indoctrinated, nor in a christian god-area. The only gods (not god I know of from Hindu and Abrahamic is here. But even then google, I looked-Im not is sillymy words) focus towards one god.

If you mean abrahamic, do you mean like casper of some sort? If a spirit, a disembodied person? Arahamics can explain it to an extent but then it ends God is greater than ourselves; he is an essense, we dont know his nature, etc. So if they dont know, how would people opposed to their belief know?

The closest I understand of god-going by what all gods religion have in common, some to one extent others to another, is they are all something one worships or singles out as something important. Many are considered a spirit, or I guess, a force that is all things. Others see it as caspor while others make life a person to interact with it.

God, when seeing what most have in common, is energy-literal, physical energy. Within that energy, anthrom* or not, is a sense of gratitude and wellbeing. A holistic aura and eurphia state of mind It helps one be aware of ones place in life and hope for continuation in life. Its (not him, her), it is life. Ones breathe is a part of it.

As for any other version outside context as above, I dont know. God must be seen in context of people and culture; what do they have in common and how does it connect (from a less literal point of view) to the outside world and the physical and scientific explanations of the world such as breathing.

But a deity, spirit, or incarnation god? That, how does a non-believer talk about it, when the believers cant explain its nature themselves?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I am amazed at how many rf people want to destroy peoples religious hope in eternal life, and God, or spirit. I can understand wanting to kick mythology out of science. But i cant understand the vehemance toward people who comply with science and still hold religious beliefs and convictions.

Have you observed what religions often cause? Divisions, being almost natural, and righteous belief in their own version often being present in many. Why wouldn't many of the non-religious, such as myself, see more deficits than benefits in religion? That for me is the ultimate question - would we be better off without them - and for me the answer is a definite yes.

 

[sojourner]

Right, that's exactly why God can't be an explanation for morality, the origin of the universe, the laws of logic, etc, even though these are often attributed to God. If God isn't an explanation for anything then you really can't appeal to God for anything other than making assertions. You couldn't say, for instance, that God explains the Resurrection of Jesus. SO once you admit that God isn't an explanation for anything in reality, and also can't explain anything abstract, then you can't be rationally justified in accepting the proposition that God definitely exists.

I never claimed “God exists.” My claim is that “God is existence.” For me, God provides meaning — not explanation. God isn’t a science experiment; God is Purpose.

 

[Willamena]

But you have hit the nail on the head for why God can provide an explanation...of mystery. Now you just need to realize how important it is for human beings to recognize where mystery plays a role and how to relate to it. That is the great practical (psychological) value of God and mystery.

Nature provides an adequate explanation for mystery in the limitations of what can realistically be known.

 

[sealchan]

Nature provides an adequate explanation for mystery in the limitations of what can realistically be known.

Adequate for what? A science textbook?

How about adequate for dealing with what oppresses you or inspires you? Now I would be the last person to say that a science textbook couldn't inspire someone (I've read one or two for recreational purposes), and certainly science is an essential place to start...but when dealing with the more subjective aspects of one's experience of life, isn't the cure for our ills often made in the form of an appeal to "believe"? If not in a mythical figure then at least in some idea or principle as it applies to us personally?

And does not art help to inspire us in this?