Is God's existence necessary?

[leibowde84]

let's start.....in the beginning.....

That is one thing we all don't know anything about.

 

[viole]

The block universe does not take consciousness into account. Physics itself does not take consciousness into account (unless, of course, you are willing to give consciousness a role to play in the collapse of the wave function).

I am not sure how relevant it is. Even if true (that the block universe theory of time) cannot account for consciousness, who cares when the classical alternative cannot account (for consciousness either) and for simple relativistic experiments? Not only the latter cannot account for relativity, it seems to be utterly wrong, if relativity is true. Which leaves us with the only possible candidate we are aware of; the block universe theory of time. Insisting on an obvious loser will not take you anywhere.

You seem to say that if X can account for the existence of Z, then X is still OK even after X has been proven to be wrong. It is like saying that a made up and provably wrong theory of the origin of life on earth is still OK because otherwise we cannot account for the origin of life on earth. Isn't better to suspend judgement or claim ignorance rather than embracing obviously wrong things?

I know that the God theory is not proven to be wrong, but I wonder if belief in God is not the result of a related epistemological misfire (giving priority to what can explan things without any evidence of its existence).

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

That is one thing we all don't know anything about.

and you are declaring....it's not real?
(we do know it's real.....or maybe you think science is lying?)

 

[Janardena]

What do you know?
How do you know that it is true?

Lets start there.

I know that we are communicating via digital channels online. That's one example.[/QUOTE]

How do you know that it's true?

 

[leibowde84]

and you are declaring....it's not real?
(we do know it's real.....or maybe you think science is lying?)

In the realm of scientific discoveries, all signs point to there being a beginning. But, as we all know, many things that, in the past, were accepted as scientific fact, have been found to be incomplete. And, assuming that there was a beginning, we still don't know anything about it definitively. If you think that this is not the case, it demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what science has actually found out about "the beginning".

 

[viole]

It doesn't appear that you have clearly thought out the implications of your argument. Without subjectivity there would be no observations. And without observations, there would be no science.

I wonder where this obsession with subjectivity comes from. Who odered it?

So, you think that a Universe without conscious beings observing it, cannot possibly exist? Do you think that scientists should stop inquiring what happens inside a black hole, which we can assume it is immune to our power of observation?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

I know that we are communicating via digital channels online. That's one example.

How do you know that it's true?[/QUOTE]
Because you are interacting with me. I make a comment or ask a question and you respond. I have no reason to think that it isn't real, as no evidence is present that would lead me to that conclusion. Thus, it is fact, or indisputably the case.

 

[Thief]

In the realm of scientific discoveries, all signs point to there being a beginning. But, as we all know, many things that, in the past, were accepted as scientific fact, have been found to be incomplete. And, assuming that there was a beginning, we still don't know anything about it definitively. If you think that this is not the case, it demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what science has actually found out about "the beginning".

I don't think science can follow through.
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment
science can point to the beginning.....but will never deliver what you ask for.

you just have to think about it.

and then you will end up making that choice I keep tossing at you....

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think science can follow through.
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment
science can point to the beginning.....but will never deliver what you ask for.

you just have to think about it.

and then you will end up making that choice I keep tossing at you....

That is where we disagree. There are two problems with your assumption:
1. You have absolutely no basis for your claim to know the limits of scientific understanding. No one on earth can validly make such radical claims about the distant future.
2. There is nothing forcing us to make a choice, and prudence demands waiting to make that choice until sufficient evidence has presented itself.
3. The scientific method is still a relatively new concept. Thus, science is still in its infant stage. We don't have enough information to make assumptions like this about the cosmos.

 

[Thief]

That is where we disagree. There are two problems with your assumption:
1. You have absolutely no basis for your claim to know the limits of scientific understanding. No one on earth can validly make such radical claims about the distant future.
2. There is nothing forcing us to make a choice, and prudence demands waiting to make that choice until sufficient evidence has presented itself.
3. The scientific method is still a relatively new concept. Thus, science is still in its infant stage. We don't have enough information to make assumptions like this about the cosmos.

science leans to the singularity....you can't take that away.
at that point....science goes quiet....

and no science is not at it's infancy.
method has been around for quite some time.

there won't be any evidence...
the choice remains

 

[McBell]

science leans to the singularity....you can't take that away.
at that point....science goes quiet....

and no science is not at it's infancy.
method has been around for quite some time.

there won't be any evidence...
the choice remains

You keep pushing your false dichotomy like a drug dealer desperate to score a sell....
The desperation that flows from your posts is rather sad.

 

[leibowde84]

science leans to the singularity....you can't take that away.
at that point....science goes quiet....

and no science is not at it's infancy.
method has been around for quite some time.

there won't be any evidence...
the choice remains

Science is certainly still relatively new, and constantly improving upon itself. So, how can you be so sure that there won't some day be evidence?

 

[Gambit]

I am not sure how relevant it is. Even if true (that the block universe theory of time) cannot account for consciousness, who cares when the classical alternative cannot account (for consciousness either) and for simple relativistic experiments? Not only the latter cannot account for relativity, it seems to be utterly wrong, if relativity is true. Which leaves us with the only possible candidate we are aware of; the block universe theory of time. Insisting on an obvious loser will not take you anywhere.

You have attempted to argue that all change and causality are illusory by invoking the block universe. But I have counter this by arguing that we are clearly observing change based on the evidence accorded to us by our first-person experience. (Something is causing our experiences to change.) Moreover, I have explained to you relativity theory holds that time is relative to the reference frame of an observer in motion! (Observation and motion (change) is paramount to the explanation.)

You seem to say that if X can account for the existence of Z, then X is still OK even after X has been proven to be wrong. It is like saying that a made up and provably wrong theory of the origin of life on earth is still OK because otherwise we cannot account for the origin of life on earth. Isn't better to suspend judgement or claim ignorance rather than embracing obviously wrong things?

I know that the God theory is not proven to be wrong, but I wonder if belief in God is not the result of a related epistemological misfire (giving priority to what can explan things without any evidence of its existence).

At the very least, we can logically infer the existence of a necessary being.

 

[LuisDantas]

Only if we take as a premise that there must be one, which defeats the exercise.

 

[leibowde84]

You have attempted to argue that all change and causality are illusory by invoking the block universe. But I have counter this by arguing that we are clearly observing change based on the evidence accorded to us by our first-person experience. (Something is causing our experiences to change.) Moreover, I have explained to you the relativity theory holds that time is relative to the reference frame of an observer in motion!



At the very least, we can logically infer the existence of a necessary being.

Aren't you just basing this on a lack of an alternative explanation though?

 

[Gambit]

So, you think that a Universe without conscious beings observing it, cannot possibly exist?

I believe an objective world existing independently of all subjectivity is an impossibility.

Do you think that scientists should stop inquiring what happens inside a black hole, which we can assume it is immune to our power of observation?

Do you think that I should stop inquiring about why there is something rather than nothing because it is a question immune to our power of observation?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Which sort of god, and necessary for what? If it's a monotheistic, transcendent creator deity, I say no.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe an objective world existing independently of all subjectivity is an impossibility.

Isn't that just another way of saying that the existence of a Creator God is a given for you?

 

[Gambit]

Aren't you just basing this on a lack of an alternative explanation though?

Reason tells us that there is no other explanation.

And if you believe we do not need to invoke God to explain anything whatsoever, then your belief in God is completely irrational. This probably explains why you have characterized yourself as an "agnostic theist."

 

[viole]

You have attempted to argue that all change and causality are illusory by invoking the block universe. But I have counter this by arguing that we are clearly observing change based on the evidence accorded to us by our first-person experience. (Something is causing our experiences to change.) Moreover, I have explained to you relativity theory holds that time is relative to the reference frame of an observer in motion! (Observation and motion (change) is paramount to the explanation.)

To invoke the block universe to challenge the concept of causality is an overshoot. It would be like killing a fly with a nuclear device. I can challenge it also under the premises of the A-theory of time. All you need is basic classical physics.

Relativity entails that the idea of a present separating the not existing anymore from the what is yet to exist is wrong. Relatvity entails that all events, independently from they belonging to our past or our future, exist eternally. As Einstein woukd say, (the flow of) time is a pretty stubborn illusion.

At the very least, we can logically infer the existence of a necessary being.

Nope. It could be that existence is a brute fact that does not require explnations. But even if it does entail the existence of something necessary, that is a far cry from deducing that this necessary thing is conscious and looks like anything similar to a god.

Ciao

- viole