Proofs for God/Religion. Got a good one?

[muffin8or]

The thing is leprechauns and fairies and pixies aren't particularly important. If they did exist people would probably be more interested in stealing a leprechauns gold. Their power is rather limited in comparison and their existence probably wouldn't add much if anything to our understanding of the fundamental questions we have about reality. God tends to do that.

I suppose that the crux of my point is that we have no idea which God is right. We might not be God's chosen people, we might be a tasty snack for God's chosen people as they cross the galaxy. That's equally valid as any other God claim.

It could also be that we were created by a powerful unicorn who wants us to spend 6 and a half hours of our day dancing at the moon otherwise we get punished.

I can attribute the idea of eternity and punishment to any ridiculous creature, make it demand preposterous things and be equally valid as any religion. To me that undermines a lot of religious claims.

On an unrelated note, want to dance at the moon with me tonight?

 

[BottomlessThought]

Yes. It is the same argument, for this fine tuning and purpose of the universe implies design.

Firstly, quote my post in full, just so I know when you are referring to me and when to someone else (i.e. keep my name and the reference in there, just as I have done with you in this post).

Now, let's clarify which version of the Design Argument you're putting forward:

To quote Wikipedia (here: Teleological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), you're saying that:

"A modern variation of the teleological argument is built upon the concept of the fine-tuned universe. The fine-tuning of the Universe is the apparent delicate balance of conditions necessary for human life. In this line of reasoning, speculation about the vast, perhaps infinite, range of possible conditions in which life could not exist is compared to the speculated improbability of achieving conditions in which life does exist, and then interpreted as indicating a fine-tuned universe specifically designed so human life is possible."

Framed directly in terms of the Design Argument:

1. The universe contains a very finely tuned balance of conditions required for human life.
2. This balance of conditions cannot have come about by chance.
3. Therefore, it must have been balanced out by a sentient, intelligent being.
4. God is a sentient, intelligent being.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Now, this is quite a horrible argument. You're going to have to be ready for a very lengthy response, as I'm not leaving out any counter-arguments here. Let's start from the top and work our way down, just so you feel increasingly inferior p):

3. Therefore, it must have been balanced out by a sentient, intelligent being.
4. God is a sentient, intelligent being.
5. Therefore, God exists.

According to the scriptures, which could be said to be fictional, God is a sentient, intelligent being. But I will have to let him being a sentient, intelligent being pass, since God is indeed an intelligent being according to his asserted definition.

However, he is not the only sentient, intelligent being. If you say that the universe "must have been balanced out by a sentient, intelligent being", that does not necessarily mean that any sentient, intelligent being deserves to be the balancer in question! I could easily create a fictional theory about a pink elephant who I say to have created the universe and fine-tuned it; that doesn't make my pink elephant God! And if you're asking why not, well, it's because my pink elephant is only the creator of the universe; there's no reason why I should also give him traits like a personality, omniscience, omnipotence and especially omnibenevolence as well! If we do admit that the universe must have been fine-tuned by an intelligent, sentient being, all you've proved is that the universe has a creator, not that the creator has any of the properties you attribute to God.

Now, working our way down to #2,

2. This balance of conditions cannot have come about by chance.

Even if we say that the balance of conditions did come about by chance, the odds of this being the truth, while extremely low, are still far greater than the odds of an infinitely complex and thus infinitely improbable God existing. In this case, the solution is, logically speaking, even less probable than the problem!

But let's leave that aside for the moment, because it may be hard to get your head around that. Let me instead point out the real problem in what you're saying, because we all know that the universe did not come about by chance in the sense you're implying. But to do so, we have to consider both parts of this argument:

1. The universe contains a very finely tuned balance of conditions required for human life.2. This balance of conditions cannot have come about by chance.

This argument is basically a straw man on the idea that the universe contains a very finely tuned balance of conditions, and thus the probability of these balances coming about by random chance is extremely low (I hear estimates ranging from 10^18 to 10^70 conditions needing to be filled).

This is all a lie, and a tautological one at that. In relation to the "finely-tuned" universe, the circular logic is in that because we are here, we exist to ask the question. If we did not exist the question could not be asked. Or stated differently, if the features of the universe were incompatible with our existence, we would not be here to notice it. Thus, because we are present and the conditions are right, we can sit back on our rockers and ponder how lucky we are; we have no idea how great or small the chances are of us indeed not being here, because if that were the case, we would not be here to find out. Thus, the argument itself is based on circular logic, and while I am a great fan of circular logic (see my "religion"), I don't like to see other people using it.

The argument also assumes that fine-tuning is indeed possible, and thus, it begs the question. By presupposing that the conditions were up to fine-tuning in the first place, rather than being fixed on a setting (from which it would be, due to the laws of the universe, impossible to stray) in which life is possible for us, you're introducing a "fine-tuner" (God, or at least some kind of creator) where none should exist, as the principles are there to ensure that nothing needs fine-tuning at all. As for the existence of the principles, they are not there to support our life; they exist because they are the only principles that could have come from the Big Bang.

Know what you're dealing with before you suggest I read a weak writer (e.g. I don't know, hmm, Lee Strobel? Why did that pop into my head?): physicists as eminent as Stephen Hawking have calculated this carefully, and come to the conclusion that there is a 98% that a universe of a type as ours will come from the Big Bang. This also takes part from another counter-argument, which is that there may be very few anthropic numbers needing to balanced out. According to Hawking (and when I say Hawking, I mean to include practically every quantum or string physicist of real emminence in the last 20 years): the only anthropic "variables" possible are me (mass of the electron), mu (mass of the up-quark), md (mass of the down-quark), and g, the Grand unified coupling constant that determines the strength of the strong, electromagnetic, and weak forces. Further, none of these can vary greatly, which is why Hawking, Kane and his colleagues proposed:

"In string theories all the parameters of the theory——in particular all quark and lepton masses, and all coupling strength——are calculable, so there are no paramters left to allow anthropic arguments"

In other words, all of these parameters for each variable fit into very small balances of probability which would almost be certain of going right for our universe. All the perceived improbability is firstly only perceived because we have no idea what would happen if it were not (as I explained with the tautology of this argument), and also because the variables really are not so variable as to make the odds low.

These are the two primary sections of the counter-argument to the fine-tuned universe argument, and once you've gotten your head around both (and done sufficient research to understand why neither of them is within question any more; I don't want references to authors unless they're similarly emminent as the ones I've quoted), I invite you to read on and take a look at some further counter-arguments against the universe argument.

 

[BottomlessThought]

Yes. It is the same argument, for this fine tuning and purpose of the universe implies design.

Firstly, I propose to you the Copernican Principle. While this is not a direct counter-argument against the fine-tuned universe argument, it does attack the idea of purpose behind the Anthropic Principle. It states that humans seem to support a privileged place in the universe where, indeed, there is successively less evidence that we are indeed anything priveleged. Successive astronomical discoveries seem to support the Copernican Principle rather than the Anthropic Principle. In the Middle Ages it was assumed that God created man in his image, and such, man and the earth were the center of the universe. Copernius and Galileo abolished the illusion that the earth was the center of the solar system and out the sun in its rightful heliocentric place. When the multiverse concept suggested that our universe may be just one of the many constantly sprouting new universes, further diminishing the Anthropic principle conclusion that the universe is here just for us. The Anthropic Principle emphasizes the rarity of life and consciousness while the Copernican Principle forces us to realize it was not all done just so we could exist.


I would also point you towards two more arguments, not of my own creation (as the first three (tautology, begging the question, lack of low probability due to lack of variability in the anthropic constants) were): one is the argument that the Anthropic Principle (so much easier to say that than "fine-tuned universe argument") is carbocentric in its view, in that it assumes that only a very small number of possible universes would bring forth life. This statement is certainly true for the particular kind of carbon-based life that we know. Other forms of simpler life may exist, possibly helium-based life, or life drawing on other elements of the universe not requiring any sort of anthropic precision. Thus, the argument has not shown that our universe is special in any way, unless we continue to insist that we, as a species, are something special. If most universes would bring forth life of some kind, the fact that ours has done so needs no explanation.


I must admit I don't agree with that argument; it lacks precision of quality. This one is better: the counter-argument from biocentrism. The Anthropic Principle claims that our Universe is special since it brought forth life, excluding other Universes since they are not special to bring forth any life. Even if life failed to come into existence, other things at least as interesting might happen. Again, special credence is being given to our human species, where no such credence is deserved.


Now, let's face it, even if the probability of the universe producing human life was humungously low (e.g. 1 in 10^70, as some estimates put it), multi-verse theory (which I will only be willing to debate once you admit that the rest of the Anthropic Principle is flawed) is horribly destructive in that it shows that one universe or the other among the universes must produce life anyway.


So, do you understand why the Anthropic Principle doesn't work?

 

[McBell]

I am inviting you to prove me wrong, by doing a little reading.

So you are basicaly claiming that anything you claim is true until someone else proves it wrong?

 

[BottomlessThought]

Thats news to me, first time Ive ever heard this. I wouldn't recommend using the word fact that way, because that is not what it means and Im fairly certain that the vast majority of people would agree. I certainly hope they would anyway. I would be really disappointed if the word fact got morphed into 'likeliest by far'.

That really is the way that "fact" is taken today. Anything which is extremely likely to be true as to render another opinion on the matter delusional is called a "fact"; mathematical-type proof is not necessary. I would happily say that it is "a fact that there are no fairies in my garden", despite the vague possibility that I am mistaken.

Only if your especially cool could you even begin to dream about reaching as many frubals as I have!

Or, you could go back in time and participate in frubal orgies to reach ridiculous levels of frubals, well into the tens and hundreds of millions. The way it used to work was the more frubals you had, the more frubals another person would get if you fruballed them. I think about half my frubals were the result of one person fruaballing me once.

Ah, I see. And this method has stopped working now?

 

[McBell]

Ah, I see. And this method has stopped working now?

As a matter of fact, yes, the frubal system was changed to give everyone the exclusive frubal power of 1.

ANd yes, there used to be threads where people would simply frubal others in the thread for no reason other than their being in the thread.

And yes, there was a time when certain members would up your frubal count several hundred thousand by frubaling ONE post.

 

[BottomlessThought]

As a matter of fact, yes, the frubal system was changed to give everyone the exclusive frubal power of 1.

ANd yes, there used to be threads where people would simply frubal others in the thread for no reason other than their being in the thread.

And yes, there was a time when certain members would up your frubal count several hundred thousand by frubaling ONE post.

How ridiculous! It would serve as a better indication of a member's reputation to reset everyone's to 10 and then let it tick up from now on.

 

[839311]

Ah, I see. And this method has stopped working now?

You only get 1 frubal now. But by all means, join the frubal orgies if thats what you want to do lol

 

[839311]

I suppose that the crux of my point is that we have no idea which God is right. We might not be God's chosen people, we might be a tasty snack for God's chosen people as they cross the galaxy. That's equally valid as any other God claim.

It could also be that we were created by a powerful unicorn who wants us to spend 6 and a half hours of our day dancing at the moon otherwise we get punished.

I can attribute the idea of eternity and punishment to any ridiculous creature, make it demand preposterous things and be equally valid as any religion. To me that undermines a lot of religious claims.

Its up to individuals to decide whether or not an idea is ridiculous. Some god concepts don't strike me as ridiculous, although most do.

On an unrelated note, want to dance at the moon with me tonight?

Just to make sure there isnt any misunderstanding, Im male.

And, no, I don't lol. But I do hope you enjoy your evening.

 

[Ifiwerearichman]

What i agree with Bottomless thought is that The design argument has made a jump of thought, in your opinion: intelligent designer does not necessarily mean God. However, if you couple this argument with the ontological and cosmological, it proves the attributes of god. If you can show that the universe was designed, you prove an intelligent being- caused, immaterial etc, maximal being comes from ontological. I hate to debate those who are more advanced in waffling than they are in putting across concise points: one point at a time please.

 

[muffin8or]

What i agree with Bottomless thought is that The design argument has made a jump of thought, in your opinion: intelligent designer does not necessarily mean God. However, if you couple this argument with the ontological and cosmological, it proves the attributes of god. If you can show that the universe was designed, you prove an intelligent being- caused, immaterial etc, maximal being comes from ontological. I hate to debate those who are more advanced in waffling than they are in putting across concise points: one point at a time please.

How about you make an argument instead of spitting out 'ontological' 'cosmological.'

How about you give us your standpoint rather than expecting us to find out what it is. Your idea of the Christian god can be different to the person kneeling down in church next to you. So tell us your standpoint.

I don't think anyone one can respond to you without creating a straw man and without you then being able to worm out of it by claiming it's not your view. So tell us your arguments and we can respond. Have a debate rather than a free for all

 

[cablescavenger]

So you are basicaly claiming that anything you claim is true until someone else proves it wrong?

No. I think I said I wasn't responding to Quagmire, but he was welcome to do some reading if he wanted.

 

[sojourner]

You're an idiot if you think the fact that Pascal only meant the Wager to apply to one God means that there is no possibility of any other Gods.

you're an idiot if you think I'm going to fall for such a poor trap. The possibility of "other God's" doesn't occur to Paschal and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Wager. Therefore, the possibility doesn't matter in any discussion of the Wager.

My argument requires no tightening.

See above.

Imagine instead that I make up some fiction (which is all I think the Christian God is; nothing more and nothing less - don't bother challenging this unless you can respond to my argument as a whole, though)

If this is all "fiction," then why are you wasting our time here arguing what obviously doesn't exist? Unless you're just here to cause trouble?

In any case, you cannot feign belief based on a betting argument. Surely an omniscient God would know exactly what kind of hedging you were up to.

Precisely, and I said so when the subject came up.

You have sparked an involved discussion, but an irrelevant one, in that most of your claims are to do with insisting that there is no proof for God (which, obviously, is an agreeable sort of thing to say, but not what the OP was looking for).

My point is relevant, because it challenges the very validity of what the OP is looking for: Proof of God. What I can't understand is why he (and you) would want to waste everyone's time by asking for something you know cannot be provided -- unless, as I said above, it was done just to cause trouble.

Do you have a degree in theology?

Yes. Do you?

And what, what on earth, makes you think theology is worth anything when it has completely failed to contribute to humanity's progress?

No, I didn't think you had one.

Your idea that you can argue better than me if you have studied theology is misguided, especially considering that I know theology PhDs who cannot argue better than me, and most of them think my view has credence anyway.

I never said that. But it's interesting that you did...

Any conversation/argument/debate/communication about God necessarily involves theology. Whenever you talk about God in any capacity, you're engaging in theology. If you have such disdain for the discipline, why have you gotten caught "slumming" in it?

 

[sojourner]

I don't see what's wrong.

This is one of the first honest statements you've made in this thread.

 

[sojourner]

I don't follow. Are you saying we can actually know something about god?

Did you read the thread? Did I say that?

Didn't think so.

 

[sojourner]

The assumptions that you make:

I didn't ask for "commentary" on misquoted assumptions. I engaged you with specific questions, to which I expect answers if we're going to debate your metaphor.
And you accuse me of being all over the place!

1) My position is that God resides in all canoes and that he works in unison as one, while residing in said canoes. Once a canoe is made, he moves into it. The wood of the canoe has no special property but the Lord is in each canoe. In other words, God is not found outside a canoe.
2) God's Canoe-ness is not meant to help us get a broader understanding of the world
3) God's Canoe-ness is not meant to inform us of our place in the created order
4) We were not created in the image of God, so there is no need to aspire to be canoe-like
5) The knowledge of the attributes of God are not meant to help us cope with suffering
6) The knowledge of the attributes of God are not meant to help us get back to the "created norm"
7) God's Canoe-ness is not meant to help us re-envision our place in the world
8) God is not immanent
9) God is not transcendent
10) Your picture of God is not meant to help you inform your inner life and help you engage it

In other words, you're not being serious here -- you're merely spamming up the thread. Which means that your OP is simply trolling for people to ridicule.
Thanks for that! I'm sure everyone's lives have been enriched by your actions here.

I started from a position of not knowing anything.

You got that right -- and you haven't made any progress either (Much like Cornwallis in the American South...)

I then realised that words and symbols have immense power

So does a battery, but you have to hook it up right for it to do what it was designed to do... so far, you're not showing any aptitude with that endeavor in this post.

I then discovered the word canoe. It always makes me smile and makes me feel warm inside. It has a variety of elements, the hard 'c', the slightly nasal 'n', the reassuring 'oo' sound. I found peace and happiness each time I saw the canoe or heard it. I found something more, something in the power of words and symbols. I don't know for certain that God is a Canoe, there is no proof per se. But that's why I think God is a canoe.

Summary: God is a canoe, because words have power. And that addresses the theological agenda...how, again? Oh! Right! It doesn't. Because you have no idea what you're doing and couldn't care less. You just seem intent on boring the rest of us with your inane balloon-juice on the subject.

Somehow you know precisely what engages the human spiritually.

Well, yes. I do! That's what years of training in spiritual direction have taught me.

You make a few too many assumptions about the nature of God and what engages people spiritually.

You're full of crap.

 

[BottomlessThought]

you're an idiot if you think I'm going to fall for such a poor trap. The possibility of "other God's" doesn't occur to Paschal and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Wager. Therefore, the possibility doesn't matter in any discussion of the Wager.

What Pascal meant with the Wager makes absolutely no difference to its validity as evidence for God. This is odd, because you seem to understand clearly that the Wager doesn't work as evidence for God; and yet you're defending a user who clearly brought it up under the impression that the Wager is a proof of God. I was only attacking the Wager to show that it is not a proof of God, and I thought that was perfectly clear in my argument. If not, then you fail to understand what I've written; I guarantee I've specified the argument's flaws as evidence quite clearly. If you're thinking of the Wager in any other way, I haven't grasped that and I wasn't responding to that. But to andy12, the very fact that other Gods are possible who may be vindictive reduces to the Wager's value as proof of God to 0.

If this is all "fiction," then why are you wasting our time here arguing what obviously doesn't exist? Unless you're just here to cause trouble?

I'm going to be honest and say that I'm here as an experiment on whether or not there are any theists who believe there are proofs for God, and whether or not (after their arguments are shown to be broken, just as Pascal's Wager is) they admit to seeing their mistake. I basically came here with the assumption that faith exists in those people and then arguments arise from the faith; I was interested to see if a (less advanced, clearly, than you) theist would put up their arguments for God, and was almost hoping that, once these arguments were disproved, they would cease to believe in God. This experiment counts as evidence for whether or not theists in general are willing to have their faiths challenged if it becomes clear that there is no evidence for God. This will help me with whether or not I should bother breaking the arguments down in real life as well, because if they won't understand their mistake anyway, there's no reason to do so.

Unpleasant as this may seem, it's why I'm here. You asked for a (presumably honest) response, and you got one.

Precisely, and I said so when the subject came up.

Really? I don't recall you saying that. Can you quote yourself in the reply, so I see where you said this?

My point is relevant, because it challenges the very validity of what the OP is looking for: Proof of God. What I can't understand is why he (and you) would want to waste everyone's time by asking for something you know cannot be provided -- unless, as I said above, it was done just to cause trouble.

Yes. Do you?

Do you have a PhD? I know two people with PhDs in theology, and both would agree that theology fails to make an arguments for God's existence that have any credence. Obviously they wouldn't say that theology is completely useless, but they would both admit that it's less useful to the modern world than science.

In any case, it's interesting that you have a degree in theology, and yet don't seem to understand the difference between proof and evidence.

No, I didn't think you had one.

Fair enough.

I never said that. But it's interesting that you did...

Let me rephrase what I meant. Your idea that you can argue with even a fraction of my understanding is flawed if you're basing that idea on your knowledge of theology. I'm not saying anything, nor did I say anything; I said "if", and I'm saying "if" here as well. If you think the reason you can argue with my level of understanding in this field is because you have a degree in theology, then you're wrong; theology does not help with understand. Theologians do not have a deeper understanding of reality than everyone else, nor is their logical ability on par with scientists.

Any conversation/argument/debate/communication about God necessarily involves theology. Whenever you talk about God in any capacity, you're engaging in theology. If you have such disdain for the discipline, why have you gotten caught "slumming" in it?

Yes, but the basis of theology - the verification of the arguments for or against God - seems to better served by a logical understanding of science than any specific study of another subject. Maybe at more abstract levels, the direct study is necessary of God, but not at the level of this thread (evidence for God).

 

[sojourner]

Have a debate rather than a free for all

Now he wants to debate. Wonderful. A day late and a dollar short...

 

[BottomlessThought]

What i agree with Bottomless thought is that The design argument has made a jump of thought, in your opinion: intelligent designer does not necessarily mean God. However, if you couple this argument with the ontological and cosmological, it proves the attributes of god. If you can show that the universe was designed, you prove an intelligent being- caused, immaterial etc, maximal being comes from ontological. I hate to debate those who are more advanced in waffling than they are in putting across concise points: one point at a time please.

Firstly, quote me if you want a response. If you don't, just leave the thread; "beliefs" without justification are not being requested here.

I wrote a rather lengthy post which completely annihilated the Anthropic Principle Argument in a large number of ways. You "agree" with me on the first one and appear not to have read the others. Listen, stop being an idiot; you don't make claims about the arguments "somehow being connected" so they can "work together" and prove God in all his attributes, not until you prove that each argument works to prove at least one attribute, and as it stands, due to my obliteration of your chosen version of the Design Argument (I'm going to go ahead and say that the version of the argument that is yours is the one I attacked, because I asked you to choose one and you chose the mainstream one, and the mainstream one is the one I attacked, so if this is the wrong assumption, we're going to ignore that, seeing as I gave you a better chance to explain your exact argument than you deserve, and move on to the next), absolutely nothing about God has been proved. This argument, the one you seem to hold (ignorant of my lengthy proofs) as demonstrating that there is an intelligent creator, fails to demonstrate that there is an intelligent creator; what your response demonstrates, however, is that you're incapable of properly responding. I didn't waffle at all: I put across 6 or 7 points, all involving the disgusting and obvious flaws in your argument.

Now, I wish to see one of three responses from you. 1) You may leave the thread and never return. 2) Respond by: quoting my original counter-argument post and then, if, for some unfathomable reason, you think any of the logic there is wrong, quote that bit seperately and answer it directly and with logical reasons why my reasons are wrong. 3) If you realize that the Anthropic Principle is flawed, I'll spare you the need for an apology, which I think would be well deserved after looking at your post above, and let you move straight on to your next argument, but this time, I want a direct explanation of the steps of logic involved in your argument, so that you cannot - after I refute what is essentially a straw man - claim that this is not the version of the argument I should be refuting.

These are the only responses I'm interested in; until you at least show a willingness to do one of the above, I don't want to hear about how the arguments work together, or about how you hate people who waffle, or any of that rubbish that seems to spew from your mouth unaccompanied by any real debate.

 

[muffin8or]

Did you read the thread? Did I say that?

Didn't think so.

Me: I came to a conclusion with another person on this thread that you can say God is whatever you want and be equally valid as anyone else.
You: Yeah, but you were patently wrong. Theology isn't a free-for-all. As I've said before, hyperbole doesn't help. It only makes your position look ridiculous.
Me: Actually I wasn't wrong. We found that there was no way of knowing what God is. So saying x about him is equally valid as anything else. Unless you can show me how we can know something about God...
You: Yes, but only under the condition that what we say about God is actually helpful in the spiritual endeavor. You are the weakest link. Goodbye!
Me: I don't follow. Are you saying we can actually know something about god?
You: Did you read the thread? Did I say that? Didn't think so.

Once again we have to trace the thread back. I started with the statement that I can say whatever I like about God and be equally valid as anyone else. This would be false if validity was shown for a God claim. You called my statement patently wrong. However we've ended with the idea that we can't know anything about God. So you haven't given validity to a God claim and my statement stands. Must we keep tracing these conversations back just to get a grip on them?

As for Pascal's Wager. I didn't follow what your saying because to me it sounded like you were saying 'for Pascal the Christian God is the only one so he needn't worry about other Gods'

Seeing as you still don't like to elaborate I'll reply to what I think you said. What Pascal was doing was assessing the variables and seeing the best outcome. God's existence was the independent variable whereas he could change the belief in God. He found that out of the four combinations maintaining faith would achieve a favourable outcome, no matter what. What Pascal failed to do was see all the variables in relation to God. I.e. God1, God2, God3, God4...etc Thus the outcome of his wager (Always Believe in God) wouldn't be successful if he chose the wrong God. Now if he narrowed all possible Gods down to one his wager would be valid. But he didn't and it isn't.