Agreed, so I'm asking you to tell me what your definition is.
I never tackled that question because I never had to assume there was anything to call god. But, I know the prevaling opinions about the word, so I titled the thread as such to attract people who did have such opinions. You should be asking them, not me. Unless you have missed the full 20+ pages of my posting, you'll realize I haven't got a belief at all, much less a belief of the name "god,"
Man, I miss one day of this thread and it soars to 30+ pages! Holy cow.
Okay, this right here is the fundamental problem with the thread. You don't have any concept of what you want people to prove to you. I could ask you to prove to me that a snarflblart exists, and while you may imagine something as a "snarflblart" the fact of the matter is that the word means nothing to me whatsoever. The result is that there isn't a common ground to begin explanation of proof. First we have to establish a line of communication whereby we can understand what one another means when we say "God."
So try to imagine what a hypothetical God would be. What does it look like, or does it look like anything? Everything? What does it do? Is it a real entity or a construct of our collective psyche? And so forth. I *think* you want us to prove that a physical entity, self-aware and capable of independent thought, with the power to change the universe in ways that defy the laws of physics, exists. But that may not be what God is to all of us.
For example, if I believe that God is a manifestation of the human psyche that serves a function in society of drawing us together and granting us a sense of purpose, the simple proof would be that I believe such a thing exists. God as meme is a self-fulfilling proof.
If I believe that God is a supernatural being that exists beyond the scope of the universe and transcends both the physical and spiritual realms (assuming I believe in a spiritual realm), then the very nature of God would make it unprovable because anything outside the scope of our own physical limitations would be impossible to describe, just as a 1-dimensional object cannot describe a 3-dimensional object with any sort of accuracy. A line cannot define a cube, and man cannot define a God of this nature.
If I believe that God is a physical entity that created the universe in such a way as to exist wholly within and as a part of it, and that the universe's fundamental laws are the exact same laws within which God must function (either because these laws always applied to God and the creation of the universe therefore fell within them, or because - through the act of creating the universe - God willingly subjected Himself to them), then God should be provable through science, and the study of science would literally be the study of proving God.
So knowing what you're asking to have proven to you is paramount to whether you can have a successful conversation about "proof." I should mention that all three of the examples given are things that people actually believe, and one result is that you're going to get (as you can see from this thread) many different and conflicting points of evidence and proof. It's important not to take two different people's explanations of God which conflict with one another as evidence that either party is incorrect, just as it's important that everyone discussing this topic does not take your desire for proof of God as an attack on their own belief in one.
Faith cannot predict things based on the laws of our universe, faith cannot design us a new means of getting basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter. Faith cannot help us to understand new aspects of the universe that we live in. Faith simply asks us to stop using our mind to figure things out and accept an answer we've been given. I'm sorry if you have a soft spot for faith, but don't even think about asserting it's permanent value over science.
You're wrong, actually. All of science is an act of faith. You yourself have said that theories are just that. They are what we currently believe to be true with regards the the laws of the Universe. They key difference, I think, between science and religion is that when science proves a theory to be false, science subsequently adjusts its beliefs to fall in line with the newly discovered facts. But science, even 99.99999999% certain science, still functions on a basis of belief.
Faith, too, does not stop people from working. You're imagining a farmer saying "I have faith that god will make it rain" and then sitting around doing nothing as he starves to death. But that farmer could just have easily said "I have faith in the ability god gave me to build an irrigation ditch" and then he could have successful crops. It's still faith. He could even say "I have faith in my ability to build an irrigation ditch" and not even think about god, but that is still faith.
I really don't care what you believe. Beliefs are not evidential and therefor useless to me. The title of the thread is "prove," your god exists. Not "make me believe," or "tell me what you believe," or anything like that. So, if you have evidence to present me that suggest your god exists, present it, but don't waste your time telling me what you believe. I didn't ask you that.
Again, I disagree. Beliefs are evidential of some things. Sure, a belief is the boogeyman doesn't make the boogeyman a real, tangible, physical object. But a belief in mathematics does make algebra possible. You can't reach out and touch the number i, or even -1; you can't point to something and say, "see that? That thing right there is the square root of negative one apples. And that thing next to it, that's exactly one less than zero apples." But the existence of those concepts - the belief that they are logical and sound, makes many mathematic problems possible to solve and that does have a tangible effect on the universe we live in.
Dismissing both faith and belief out of hand as irrelevant to the discussion does an injustice to the debate as a whole.
1. Few pages ago you agreed that no physical evidence can be used to prove something non-physical. You still want material evidence of something you already said that can't materially proved.
Feel free to quote whatever it is you're paraphasing. I can't be asked to figure out what it is, but it does not sound familiar.
2. You did ask why peopple believe in whatever they believe a few posts ago. Now you say you don't.
Yes, I asked specific posters to reveal more ideas behind their beliefs. You were not one of them. As I think we were diverting too much from the topic, I discontinued asking for such things.
3. Even if we tell you, it won´t be material (cause its impossible), it has to be based on personal experiences (that you will dismiss cause you want facts)
I think you're confusing my original discussion, hinging on evidence, and my secondary discussion of ideas behind beliefs. Those are two diffirent things. I think Umpa and I agree, the latter was not as productive and became hostile.
Again the mentality I wanna avoid. The idea that hurts both religious and atheists speeches: the personalization of god as one allpowerfull individual and his complete separation from scientific facts as comsmology or evolution. Universal Laws exists no one can deny it, but also no one can explain (and never will) logically how all begun. Religious fanitics and atheists are both wrong and unable to discuss.
Too bad, you can't avoid it. You're on a computer right now that was designed by knowledge acquired from science, not faith. The personalized god that you're making up and choosing to believe in has nothing at all to do with the evidential sciences of cosmology or biology (evolution). Wether or not there is a god out there, we know the universe works. Supposing one out of faith doesn't help us understand that universe. I can appreciate your desire to know, logic be damned, how it all began, but agin, that doesn't make a bit of diffirence. Religious fanatics are illogical and almost certainly "wrong." Atheists claim nothing to be "wrong," about. You're creating a dichotomy where none exists.
yep somewhere it changed from "show arguments" to "you wrong". I'm done here, going to try to win the beta now.
I invite you to read the thread again, or for the first time, because you have clearly missed the conversation and mis-characterized it in a most dishonest manner.
Okay, this right here is the fundamental problem with the thread. You don't have any concept of what you want people to prove to you. I could ask you to prove to me that a snarflblart exists, and while you may imagine something as a "snarflblart" the fact of the matter is that the word means nothing to me whatsoever. The result is that there isn't a common ground to begin explanation of proof. First we have to establish a line of communication whereby we can understand what one another means when we say "God."
I don't have a personal concept of god, but I do understand the god concepts of most popular religions and deist philosophers. I would have to assume that this is the common ground.
So knowing what you're asking to have proven to you is paramount to whether you can have a successful conversation about "proof."
I don't think so. When a physicist asks his colleages to explain a new concept they've been working on, they are not animating a picture that is already in his head. They're providing empirical evidence that fits together so as to compose a new picture. It is a composit understanding arrived at by evidence. Were we to need an idea wholly in our heads in order to ask about it and have it explained rationally, I shouldn't think that we would have advanced much in the field of science.
It's important not to take two different people's explanations of God which conflict with one another as evidence that either party is incorrect, just as it's important that everyone discussing this topic does not take your desire for proof of God as an attack on their own belief in one.
Well, there is such a thing as mutual exclusivity, but I do agree not ALL God concepts and religions are mutually exclusive (though a great many are).
Too bad, you can't avoid it. You're on a computer right now that was designed by knowledge acquired from science, not faith. The personalized god that you're making up and choosing to believe in has nothing at all to do with the evidential sciences of cosmology or biology (evolution). Wether or not there is a god out there, we know the universe works. Supposing one out of faith doesn't help us understand that universe. I can appreciate your desire to know, logic be damned, how it all began, but agin, that doesn't make a bit of diffirence. Religious fanatics are illogical and almost certainly "wrong." Atheists claim nothing to be "wrong," about. You're creating a dichotomy where none exists.
You're making a gross assumption that belief in God is inherently at odds with science and the laws of physics. In fact, Einstein said:
I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.
This is science. We're unraveling the mysteries of the universal library. Perhaps it is God's library. Perhaps it is no one's library. But there is a library.
Maybe our study of it will reveal where it came from, how it was formed, and why it exists. It seems likely that all of these questions will be answered through science. That does not mean that none of them have been answered through religion. We won't know for certain until our studies are sufficiently advanced to know the contents of every single book in the library.
Okay, this right here is the fundamental problem with the thread. You don't have any concept of what you want people to prove to you. I could ask you to prove to me that a snarflblart exists, and while you may imagine something as a "snarflblart" the fact of the matter is that the word means nothing to me whatsoever. The result is that there isn't a common ground to begin explanation of proof. First we have to establish a line of communication whereby we can understand what one another means when we say "God."
I don't have a personal concept of god, but I do understand the god concepts of most popular religions and deist philosophers. I would have to assume that this is the common ground.
But I have just given three common beliefs of God which are very different in size, scope, and provability. Heck, I even proved one for you! To be fair, the God-meme theory is not common among religious people, but it is provable.
So knowing what you're asking to have proven to you is paramount to whether you can have a successful conversation about "proof."
I don't think so. When a physicist asks his colleages to explain a new concept they've been working on, they are not animating a picture that is already in his head. They're providing empirical evidence that fits together so as to compose a new picture. It is a composit understanding arrived at by evidence. Were we to need an idea wholly in our heads in order to ask about it and have it explained rationally, I shouldn't think that we would have advanced much in the field of science.
I disagree. Science relies on hypothesis. Namely, I think that X will happen when I do Y. Or, I think that Q exists, and we can find out by doing P. And so forth. Sometimes the results are surprising or contrary to the original hypothesis, but there is always a conjecture that is clearly framed before any inquiry is begun. Here, it appears that you are expecting a single answer to a very vague "prove that God exists." The conjecture of each person offering their proof is different and needs to be understood that way. We have many different hypotheses in this thread, and many different examinations of them. I assume you're attempting to composite them together, but I personally stipulate that we don't actually have enough information to declare any of our experiments to be "conclusive." The lack of evidence, however, is not proof that evidence does not exist somewhere. As Edison said, "I have not failed. I have only found 999 ways that do not work."
It's important not to take two different people's explanations of God which conflict with one another as evidence that either party is incorrect, just as it's important that everyone discussing this topic does not take your desire for proof of God as an attack on their own belief in one.
Well, there is such a thing as mutual exclusivity, but I do agree not ALL God concepts and religions are mutually exclusive (though a great many are).
Very true, but differing views, in light of a lack of overwhelming evidence, are not necessarily proof of one another's incorrectness. Let me offer this as well: The laws of nature dictate cause and effect in all things. There is no action which does not have a result, and no results that do not have actions which initiated them. Thus, it is perfectly logical and reasonable to assume that the universe came from somewhere and that some action initiated its creation.
I don't think you understand what I said. I have no such claim that the library books have an author or not. My contention is that theorizing via beliefs about the author doesn't help us attain literacy. We can seek the knowledge within those books without making any such claims.
Here, it appears that you are expecting a single answer to a very vague "prove that God exists." The conjecture of each person offering their proof is different and needs to be understood that way. We have many different hypotheses in this thread, and many different examinations of them. I assume you're attempting to composite them together, but I personally stipulate that we don't actually have enough information to declare any of our experiments to be "conclusive." The lack of evidence, however, is not proof that evidence does not exist somewhere. As Edison said, "I have not failed. I have only found 999 ways that do not work."
A single answer would be nice. I don't pretend the question isn't vague. I don't think we have anything conclusive either. Again, you seem to be arguing that i'm saying god doesn't exist or can't exist, but that isn't the case.
I don't think you understand what I said. I have no such claim that the library books have an author or not. My contention is that theorizing via beliefs about the author doesn't help us attain literacy. We can seek the knowledge within those books without making any such claims.
That's fair, but it begs the question: Why did you start this thread? The desire for proof of an author indicates that you do view it as relevant to the scouring of these books for knowledge.
I am inclined to agree that knowing if there is an author and who that author is would be pertinent, as it could grant a great perspective from which the books were written. I offer this: The religious views of the middle ages that the Earth was the center of the universe provided scientists a perspective from which to approach the problem of the motion of the starts, sun, and planets in the sky. Without this initial perspective - as incorrect as it may have been - would the scientists of the day have figured out that we revolve around the sun?
The existence of the theological explanation of the universe provides framework. Science provides evidence. At some points, they agree (Jesus was a real living person), and at some points they don't (Noah built a boat that held two of every creature in the world on it), and in other places, they simply cannot yet find enough evidence to tangibly say whether or not they agree or disagree (where did the universe come from?).
I'm of the opinion that answering the question of the origins of the universe will be a great leap towards determining if any God exists, but it may not in fact lead us any closer to the answer. In the absence of hard evidence against it, I choose to believe - operate under the assumption - that some sort of higher power did create our universe. I can't prove it to you, but I do believe that this is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the limited evidence at hand.
I don't see a problem with religion so long as it isn't hurting others (and feeling insulted by someone just because they hold themselves to higher standards than you is not hurting anyone, it's one of many choices).
I think the purpose of most religion, to the individual, is to make personal progress. I think the purpose of science, to the individual, is to make intellectual progress. They are two in the same, as personal progress is a direct result from what we learn from our trials in life. You can argue about the effects religion and science have (had) on the world and whether or not they serve a political purpose (everything involving people effects politics, deal with it), but I think in the end it all boils down to the individual. It's your choice to believe or not to believe. It's your choice to use the science, or forbid the use of the science.
I personally believe everyone is born with a sense of right and wrong (the light of Christ) and as they go through life and somewhat unique experiences that sense is either strengthened, or dulled. We don't have to act one way or another, it's a choice, and I believe that's why we're here. I prefer the optimistic approach over being depressed that one day we're all going to be eaten and distributed through the ground and that's it, I don't blame my problems on anyone and I don't hurt anyone except in defense, what's wrong with that?
I think it's up to the individual to choose which religion is most true(or not believe any) and has the most in common with their innate beliefs. Whatever happens after that, happens. You can't ask someone to not hope for the future.
That's fair, but it begs the question: Why did you start this thread? The desire for proof of an author indicates that you do view it as relevant to the scouring of these books for knowledge.
Ah, but you're taking a literalist view of the question. Might I not too, value the realization that some would come to being confronted with the question? I'm not saying it was rhetorical, because I do leave the general proposition open, but I think there is an element of rhetorical education in the post that you're missing.
I am inclined to agree that knowing if there is an author and who that author is would be pertinent, as it could grant a great perspective from which the books were written. I offer this: The religious views of the middle ages that the Earth was the center of the universe provided scientists a perspective from which to approach the problem of the motion of the starts, sun, and planets in the sky. Without this initial perspective - as incorrect as it may have been - would the scientists of the day have figured out that we revolve around the sun?
I don't think I follow your premise. We were speaking in terms of competition between faith and science. I did not propose that at some point having perspective is impossible or useless. What I proposed was that learning to read the books is a far more valuable thing than having that perspective, espcially since we cannot be certain (until we are totally literate) that we are correct in our assumed perspective. I don't think that I agree a geocentric world view was instrumental to the growth of astronomy.
The existence of the theological explanation of the universe provides framework. Science provides evidence. At some points, they agree (Jesus was a real living person), and at some points they don't (Noah built a boat that held two of every creature in the world on it), and in other places, they simply cannot yet find enough evidence to tangibly say whether or not they agree or disagree (where did the universe come from?).
I disagree. Science does not fill a theological framework. Science construcs that framework just fine by itself. At some point, they might agree or disagree, but that much is coincidental. I invite you to elucidate that argument though, because I don't feel it is very clear to me.
I'm of the opinion that answering the question of the origins of the universe will be a great leap towards determining if any God exists, but it may not in fact lead us any closer to the answer. In the absence of hard evidence against it, I choose to believe - operate under the assumption - that some sort of higher power did create our universe. I can't prove it to you, but I do believe that this is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the limited evidence at hand.
I hold the opinion we may come to understand anything about the universe. I hesitate to make idle speculation about what it would mean because I cannot know what all those things might be. What I espcially will not do; however, is believe. I will hypothesize to the best of the evidence presented me, but in the total absence of evidence I will decline the offer to assert anything. Thusly, I see no reason to assert a higher power or a creator/creation of the universe. I simply have no evidence, limited or otherwise upon which to make a reasonable assumption.
If you're an atheist you obviously first and foremost don't believe religious texts are credible, or else you wouldn't consider yourself an atheist, no? I say this because if you had found them credible, you'd see "evidence" for a higher power, and it's not like you haven't heard of the bible, the most read book in the world.
I'm of the opinion that answering the question of the origins of the universe will be a great leap towards determining if any God exists, but it may not in fact lead us any closer to the answer. In the absence of hard evidence against it, I choose to believe - operate under the assumption - that some sort of higher power did create our universe. I can't prove it to you, but I do believe that this is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the limited evidence at hand.
I hold the opinion we may come to understand anything about the universe. I hesitate to make idle speculation about what it would mean because I cannot know what all those things might be. What I espcially will not do; however, is believe. I will hypothesize to the best of the evidence presented me, but in the total absence of evidence I will decline the offer to assert anything. Thusly, I see no reason to assert a higher power or a creator/creation of the universe. I simply have no evidence, limited or otherwise upon which to make a reasonable assumption.
I agree wholeheartedly that we may come to understand anything about the universe. That's what's so exciting about it! However, I differ with you in that I see no reason not to make idle speculation. Concoct a theory, test the theory. Speculate, test the speculation. Tomato, tomato (that expression doesn't work well in text at all).
As for your statement that there's a total absence of evidence, I disagree.
1) We know that the universe operates under a limited set of laws.
2) We know that one of these laws is that there is no action without an equal and opposite reaction.
3) We know that there is a conservation of matter in the universe. That is to say, nothing comes from nowhere, and everything comes from somewhere.
4) We know that the universe began with what is commonly known as the "Big Bang Theory" - that all matter in the universe simultaneously erupted from a single point and that the results of that eruption is directly responsible for everything we can observe today.
This information would then lead us to believe that the universe came from somewhere. That before the Big Bang, there was something. I can't say what it is or was, but our understanding of science is fairly clear that the universe did not spontaneously manifest out of nowhere. There has to be a reason that the Big Bang occurred. The existence of an entity, outside of the laws of physics, with the ability to manipulate (or at least create) the realm of physics, is one possible explanation.
Personally, I find that to be a simpler explanation than the Big Crush theory (that the universe repeatedly expands and collapses in on itself and has existed literally forever with no actual origin) - especially in light of recent findings that the universe's expansion is accelerating, which makes any such Big Crush unlikely.
I also find a God theory to be more satisfactory than a "spontaneous generation" theory of the universe, which would violate the 2nd and 3rd points which I raised above.
I will grant, however, that what we actually know about the instant of universal creation is virtually nothing. We know about the time very near to the instant of creation, but not the actual instant. The results of our scientific attempts to see that point will likely surprise us all.
In the light of the incredible advances in technology required to learn concrete data about this moment, the amount of time and treasure that it takes to make these studies, and the scope of human history and curiosity about where we came from, we can hardly discount the value of religious explanations.
God exists because we can't prove otherwise.
God does not exist because we can't prove he does.
But the evidence before us, the scientific likelihood that something created the universe, is quite compelling.
Edit: I'd like to now refer to the instant that the universe was created as Schrödinger's God Box.
I agree wholeheartedly that we may come to understand anything about the universe. That's what's so exciting about it! However, I differ with you in that I see no reason not to make idle speculation.
You and I are free to idly speculate on things about which we have no evidence, sure, but prudence would suggest we do not make truth claims based on these speculations.
As for your statement that there's a total absence of evidence, I disagree.
1) We know that the universe operates under a limited set of laws.
2) We know that one of these laws is that there is no action without an equal and opposite reaction.
3) We know that there is a conservation of matter in the universe. That is to say, nothing comes from nowhere, and everything comes from somewhere.
4) We know that the universe began with what is commonly known as the "Big Bang Theory" - that all matter in the universe simultaneously erupted from a single point and that the results of that eruption is directly responsible for everything we can observe today.
1. We're actually not aware of how limited to expansive the laws are. Given we already know there is a diffirential between laws at the macro level and the micro level (relativity theory and quantum theory, respectively) I see no reason to suppose that as Feynman said "it may be like an onion, with so many layers we just get tired of peeling."
2. Yes, but we are not entirely aware of how it works at the quantum level or if it actually applies there.
3. Again, this is actually being challenged by quantum theory. Hawking's most recent supposition was that the universe itself may have simply "come from nothing," so I wouldn't agree we have an absolute grasp on this.
4. Indeed, that is the current best explanation we have from empirical evidence for the universe that we see. It however, isn't without points of scientific contention, and it's certainty declines the closer you get to the "bang." It is absolutely uncertain about the singularity state or what we might call the nature of the universe prior to that, if such a thing is relavent to speak about.
This information would then lead us to believe that the universe came from somewhere. That before the Big Bang, there was something. I can't say what it is or was, but our understanding of science is fairly clear that the universe did not spontaneously manifest out of nowhere. There has to be a reason that the Big Bang occurred. The existence of an entity, outside of the laws of physics, with the ability to manipulate (or at least create) the realm of physics, is one possible explanation.
I disagree (and to avoid being redundant, see the above list) that we have any such certainty about it. We can further understand the laws of our universe and the big bag, but I don't think we can presently say we know it was an action with "reason," so much as simple probability. We know that it took place, but we don't know much about the context in which it took place. An outside entity is a plausible explanation given what we know, but we have no more evidence for it than simply saying the universe was always there as a singularity or that the singularity just appeared from nothing. All three of those suppositions are equally unfounded idle speculations.
That isn't to say we'll never know which is more likely, but as of right now I maintain that we do not have the knowledge upon which to make an assertion that isn't simply wishful thinking.
Personally, I find that to be a simpler explanation than the Big Crush theory (that the universe repeatedly expands and collapses in on itself and has existed literally forever with no actual origin) - especially in light of recent findings that the universe's expansion is accelerating, which makes any such Big Crush unlikely.
Yes, i'd say we don't have grounds on which to substantiate the idea the universe regularly expands and contracts based on our red-light-shift observations.
I also find a God theory to be more satisfactory than a "spontaneous generation" theory of the universe, which would violate the 2nd and 3rd points which I raised above.
What we find satisfactory is immaterial to the discussion, unless you want to imbue our subconsious minds with knowledge that we cannot assume ourselves to posess.
In the light of the incredible advances in technology required to learn concrete data about this moment, the amount of time and treasure that it takes to make these studies, and the scope of human history and curiosity about where we came from, we can hardly discount the value of religious explanations.
Curiosity is one thing and something I would dare not tread upon. Religious explanations; however, are something else entirely. If you are to make a case that religion hasn't hindered our rational understanding, good luck to you. The burning of Alexandria alone likely set us back a few hundred years. To say nothing of the number of scientific and philsophical minds put to noose, crucifix, and fire over the centuries.
I take a very ambilavent view of religion myself. I abosolutely value introspection, and meditation, but none of those things are unique to religion. Those religions who champion those aspects over dogmatic adherence to static beliefs are not harmful either. What I find fault with are religions who stake claims to truth and actually function againt curiosity. Being a historian I cannot totally blind myself to the culture that came out of our religious past, nor can I claim that religion was always a hurdle to jump for mankind, but I think the case can be made that the time for religions to stop making truth claims has arrived.
But the evidence before us, the scientific likelihood that something created the universe, is quite compelling.
Again, I disagree. Our scientific knowledge has yet to present us with evidence that would make such a claim "compelling," at all. Better to bathe in the chill water of doubt and be clean, than to bask in the warmth of possibly false assumptions, which might be piss. =)
If you're an atheist you obviously first and foremost don't believe religious texts are credible, or else you wouldn't consider yourself an atheist, no? I say this because if you had found them credible, you'd see "evidence" for a higher power, and it's not like you haven't heard of the bible, the most read book in the world.
You're a little confused about the term Atheist. It isn't a dogma and it doesn't require that I turn anything down that is evidence. We don't accept the notion that god is evident because we have not see any such evidence. Atheist isn't a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby or not smoking is a habbit. We have the same rational standard for evidence as everyone else. Theists just don't adhere to that standard when it comes to god.
Religious texts are as credible as we can prove them to be. I have, personally, studied over dozens of archological and anthropoligical treatises on the subject of ancient hebrew culture. I'll tell you right now it doesn't do a lot for the crediblity of the old testament. Of course, that isn't to say the whole history presented is entirely fiction, but a good deal of it has been made very unlikely in the face of physical evidence. Even Isreali university athropologists now agree that the exodus likely never took place at all, that's a large part of the story in and of itself.
I don't know if you're suggesting I hold the bible to a much lower standard than the rest of the ancient texts I study, but I can tell you right now the claim that Jesus ascended into heaven is no diffirent than the claim that Achillies was immortal except for his heel. They could both be true and we have no grounds upon which to substantiate such a claim. The fact the claim was made (and don't get me started on the number of people in history who have claimed to be the progeny of god) is not evidence.
Actually, Hawking only says that it is not necessary for God to have lit the blue touch paper and started the Universe, and says that spontaneous creation is possible in light of the laws of gravity. It doesn't actually preclude the possibility of a God, nor does it mean that something else may have been at play when the universe was created.
Regardless, even this creation theory of hawking's has gravity as the grand creator of the universe - it is not a true spontaneous creation theory, as it does have a cause that led to the effect of the universe's creation. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in M-Theory and Hawking's views of Big Bang gravitational spontaneous generation, but he's not ruling out the possibility of a creator, merely opening a door for the absence of a conscious entity having been one.
Regardless, I hold that a possibly false assumption is all we ever have, and that through conscious knowledge of that possibility, we develop more refined means of putting our beliefs to the test.
The comparison that you make between the chill water of doubt and the warmth of possibly false assumptions sounds more like nihilism than atheism. you're comparing the belief in nothing to the belief in something, while your avowed standpoint is that of someone who, in contrast, has seen nothing to believe in, which is a very different thing.
Edit: Your description of atheist in the above post is excellent however, I want to make sure you know that I saw that!
This information would then lead us to believe that the universe came from somewhere. That before the Big Bang, there was something. I can't say what it is or was, but our understanding of science is fairly clear that the universe did not spontaneously manifest out of nowhere. There has to be a reason that the Big Bang occurred. The existence of an entity, outside of the laws of physics, with the ability to manipulate (or at least create) the realm of physics, is one possible explanation.
Personally, I find that to be a simpler explanation than the Big Crush theory (that the universe repeatedly expands and collapses in on itself and has existed literally forever with no actual origin) - especially in light of recent findings that the universe's expansion is accelerating, which makes any such Big Crush unlikely.
I also find a God theory to be more satisfactory than a "spontaneous generation" theory of the universe, which would violate the 2nd and 3rd points which I raised above.
If the universe have to be created by an entity outside of the laws of physics, with the ability to manipulate (or at least create) the realm of physics (a god).
Where did this entity/god come from? Who or what created it?
You don't accept that fact that the universe may have always been there but you accept that this so called entity/god is there to create and/or manipulate our world.
1. Few pages ago you agreed that no physical evidence can be used to prove something non-physical. You still want material evidence of something you already said that can't materially proved.
Feel free to quote whatever it is you're paraphasing. I can't be asked to figure out what it is, but it does not sound familiar.
What kind evidence would you consider?
1 - Only material evidence? Even if its about a non-material being/whatever. Sry bro nobody can do that.
2 - Peopple's testimony in favor or against? This should never be accepted without proof. Cmon, this is weak even in our dailly basis, we have lies, hallucinations (induced or by ill) and misinterpretations of all kinds. Whitout evidence it is nothing (back to 1). Can't do this.
Conclusion: with what we have today, science wise, there´s absolutelly no chance to prove, in your terms, something like a "god".
People's testimony is not empirical evidence, i'm afraid. And I agree, we absolutely cannot prove a god any more than we can disprove a god based on empirical evidence. But, we should not take the next mistaken step of assuming that this is a blank-check to infer whatever we want about a god that we have no reason to suppose exists at all.
Unless you have a logical explanation about how things started
I don't need one. You do? That's great. But don't demand that I do too.
I don't demand you do anything, but this is the only way to prove something that can't be proved, that was the original goal of your topic. This logic excercise is for now the "best evidence" you can have that a god must exist. So it is that I'm not the only one to use it to propose you that god is atleast a possibility.
As for your statement that there's a total absence of evidence, I disagree.
1) We know that the universe operates under a limited set of laws.
2) We know that one of these laws is that there is no action without an equal and opposite reaction.
3) We know that there is a conservation of matter in the universe. That is to say, nothing comes from nowhere, and everything comes from somewhere.
4) We know that the universe began with what is commonly known as the "Big Bang Theory" - that all matter in the universe simultaneously erupted from a single point and that the results of that eruption is directly responsible for everything we can observe today.
Answering this with "we don't know what science will discover" solves experimental problems, but not logic problems (yeah logics again)
---
BTW Don't ignore or bash an argument as you been doing without saying what you want. This is the best way to not be proven wrong. This is dishonest.
State your premises and your goal so people can talk. If not, ask a Mod to lock it.
I really don't care what you believe. Beliefs are not evidential and therefor useless to me. The title of the thread is "prove," your god exists. Not "make me believe," or "tell me what you believe," or anything like that. So, if you have evidence to present me that suggest your god exists, present it, but don't waste your time telling me what you believe. I didn't ask you that.
You knew this was not currently possible before you even made the thread. Therefore, you structured this thread to welcome people to try and do something that is not possible. What do you hope to get out of this?
I'm having second thoughts about leaving this open if this is the case. There is literally nowhere this thread can go but in a very tiny circle. All that can really happen here is a futile conversation going from civil to hostile. I honestly don't see a point for this thread to exist unless restructured.
i have to agree it cannot be proven thru words, especially not in forums, the existence of God can be discussed. but to prove it thru words and in a forum is impossible. as i said earlier the proof of God's existance will not be found in a forum thread, its impossible because he shows himself thru specific events in our live's. i can mention an event, in fact several but it wont do anybody here any good. all these super intellectual discussions are driving me nuts. besides we'll all find out whether God exists sooner or later. I know where i stand and thru my experiences and the experience of may pple around me and also far away i know God exists. nothing said in this thread will prove me otherwise so. its as impossible to give proof of the existance of God as it is to give proof that he doesnt exist, especially in the forums.
Actually, Hawking only says that it is not necessary for God to have lit the blue touch paper and started the Universe, and says that spontaneous creation is possible in light of the laws of gravity. It doesn't actually preclude the possibility of a God, nor does it mean that something else may have been at play when the universe was created.
Yes, as I said, he suggested no first-cause is required. I guess I have to repeat myself again when I say that I am NOT ruling out any possibility of god. I'm simply showing that what we do know does not imply god any more than it disregards god. You argued we had reason to think a higer power was at work. I'm saying we have no such reason to assume so. The universe, as we are coming to understand it, seems to work without a god. We certainly don't understand it entirely, or even well, but that understanding of our current limitations does not imply god one way or the other.
Regardless, even this creation theory of hawking's has gravity as the grand creator of the universe - it is not a true spontaneous creation theory, as it does have a cause that led to the effect of the universe's creation. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in M-Theory and Hawking's views of Big Bang gravitational spontaneous generation, but he's not ruling out the possibility of a creator, merely opening a door for the absence of a conscious entity having been one.
Creation is a poor choice of words. Also, again, i'm not ruling anything out either. I'm simply refuting the idea we must infer god. We have no reason to.
Regardless, I hold that a possibly false assumption is all we ever have, and that through conscious knowledge of that possibility, we develop more refined means of putting our beliefs to the test.
I hold that doubt, skepticism, and a continued investigation of our universe through the lense of empirical science will help us refine our knowledge of the universe. I also hold that pre-concieved notions about what truths should be found is not helpful in that endeavor.
The comparison that you make between the chill water of doubt and the warmth of possibly false assumptions sounds more like nihilism than atheism. you're comparing the belief in nothing to the belief in something, while your avowed standpoint is that of someone who, in contrast, has seen nothing to believe in, which is a very different thing.
I've been explicit about the fact that I hold to no beliefs and that I won't assert things for which I have no evidence. I'm comparing making an assertion based on wishful thinking to simply holding firm in the rational position where one cannot make any such assertion. I'll wear the badge of irony and nihilism if the shoes fit, but I don't think either typecast diminishes my argument.
I think this video (and i've linked it here previously) states my point of view nicely.
I only clarified that my question was genuine since i know quite a lot of religious folks feel offended at being asked if they are gay.
Glad you are not of that group.
And I must say I am quite surprised by your revelation. Chances are that you are bisexual which is a predisposition possible within our species.
Once again I am not accusing, only trying to understand. I can say with confidence that I have not experienced any attraction to a man. I can appreciate the beauty of one but there is simply no trace of sexual attraction. So it is my experience against yours here. Considering that I have no moral or religious doubt or stance against homosexuality, I hope you will consider my experience as relevant too.
Let's wait and see if we get more people willing to back up mine or your experience on this one.
lol, okay maybe i should've rewritten everything. ill try to explain my position further. Homosexuality, bisexual, hetero these are all terms scientists came up with to explain something they dont understand. We are beginning to label each other based on certain experiences and thats not true, in my opinion. there is NO such thing as a homosexual to me, not in the way u may understand it. there are pple with certain attraction to men that they have decided to grow and nurture because at some point they felt confused and decided they are homosexuals and jumped into the bandwagon. n correct me if im wrong. but an appreciation to beauty also has an attraction to it attached. If i think a painintg is beatiful i am attracted to it. but obviously there is no possiblity for sexual intercourse there. with a woman i may be attracted to her beauty but it doesnt mean i want to have sex unless i decide it does. so why do some pple deicide to show their sexual attraction to other pple, and even animals, but not paintings? the answer is that its not possible but if it was they would definately go for it. does it mean that its right, well that depends or ur views. All i had was a feeling, which does not mean i jumped into sexual attraction. that can happen if i follow the feeling, which i did not. i also have that appreciation for beauty, hell i should if im studying art. sry i couldnt wait i needed to clarify
i assume you're not gay, and since you're not, your opinion on homosexuality doesnt matter
any homosexual you ask will say that it's not something they chose to be, but something they chose to accept. you didnt choose to be heterosexual, it's just something that is. it's the same for homosexuals. why do you think some homosexual ppl commit suicide instead of choosing to NOT be homosexual? it's because it's NOT something you can choose, just as little as you could choose to be homosexual. sure you could choose to have sex with another guy (if you're a guy) but that doesnt make you gay. it would be quite convenient if gay guys could just have sex with a girl, and then they are heterosexual suddenly -.- sorry, but it doesnt work that way.
you'd be surprised what ppl masturbate to...
oh dont worry i wouldnt be surprised, i assure you. so ur telling me homosexuals have liked men since birth? wow thats impressive didnt even kno 2 year olds had that kind of sexual drive. and its not a matter of choosing its about understanding. if im a certain way but i dont understand why i am this way than how can i possibly change or alter said aspect of myself. for instance, my relationship with my mother is very stressful, and maybe it causes me a lot of suffering but until i understand why my relationship with her is so stressful ill never manage to change it with or without God's help. The homosexuals that commit suicide... not sure what that has to do with anything, they could've committed suicide for any number of reasons. the core to all those reasons is usually between hopelessness and unhappiness. i would also encourage everyone to research more closely the rate of suicides every day, the media doesnt like to share those numbers.
Answering this with "we don't know what science will discover" solves experimental problems, but not logic problems (yeah logics again)
---
BTW Don't ignore or bash an argument as you been doing without saying what you want. This is the best way to not be proven wrong. This is dishonest.
State your premises and your goal so people can talk. If not, ask a Mod to lock it.
You seem to have a tenuous-at-best grasp on the word "logic," and what it means. If you want my premise, read the OP. Sorry to be terse, but you're literally not making sense.
Yes, as I said, he suggested no first-cause is required. I guess I have to repeat myself again when I say that I am NOT ruling out any possibility of god. I'm simply showing that what we do know does not imply god any more than it disregards god. You argued we had reason to think a higer power was at work. I'm saying we have no such reason to assume so. The universe, as we are coming to understand it, seems to work without a god. We certainly don't understand it entirely, or even well, but that understanding of our current limitations does not imply god one way or the other.
hope im not off topic and so i dare to say that i agree. the universe seems to work without God. tis true it does. but it deosnt mean that he didnt create the universe. it just means that it works perfectly, as far as we kno. The reason to think a higher power is at work is not found in physics or theories of how the universe works etc. it is found in our lives. if god created gravity the universe, physics, etc, all these complicated things why does that imply that we can prove the existance of God through those things, all we will find as we further explore those areas is how those areas work, kinda like the movie The Time Machine, the man created the machine because of his wife's death so how could he use it to safe his wife. God wont be found through some super complicated formula or physics or super intellectual conversations. hope i made sense and stayed on topic, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Man, I miss one day of this thread and it soars to 30+ pages! Holy cow.
Okay, this right here is the fundamental problem with the thread. You don't have any concept of what you want people to prove to you. I could ask you to prove to me that a snarflblart exists, and while you may imagine something as a "snarflblart" the fact of the matter is that the word means nothing to me whatsoever. The result is that there isn't a common ground to begin explanation of proof. First we have to establish a line of communication whereby we can understand what one another means when we say "God."
So try to imagine what a hypothetical God would be. What does it look like, or does it look like anything? Everything? What does it do? Is it a real entity or a construct of our collective psyche? And so forth. I *think* you want us to prove that a physical entity, self-aware and capable of independent thought, with the power to change the universe in ways that defy the laws of physics, exists. But that may not be what God is to all of us.
For example, if I believe that God is a manifestation of the human psyche that serves a function in society of drawing us together and granting us a sense of purpose, the simple proof would be that I believe such a thing exists. God as meme is a self-fulfilling proof.
If I believe that God is a supernatural being that exists beyond the scope of the universe and transcends both the physical and spiritual realms (assuming I believe in a spiritual realm), then the very nature of God would make it unprovable because anything outside the scope of our own physical limitations would be impossible to describe, just as a 1-dimensional object cannot describe a 3-dimensional object with any sort of accuracy. A line cannot define a cube, and man cannot define a God of this nature.
If I believe that God is a physical entity that created the universe in such a way as to exist wholly within and as a part of it, and that the universe's fundamental laws are the exact same laws within which God must function (either because these laws always applied to God and the creation of the universe therefore fell within them, or because - through the act of creating the universe - God willingly subjected Himself to them), then God should be provable through science, and the study of science would literally be the study of proving God.
So knowing what you're asking to have proven to you is paramount to whether you can have a successful conversation about "proof." I should mention that all three of the examples given are things that people actually believe, and one result is that you're going to get (as you can see from this thread) many different and conflicting points of evidence and proof. It's important not to take two different people's explanations of God which conflict with one another as evidence that either party is incorrect, just as it's important that everyone discussing this topic does not take your desire for proof of God as an attack on their own belief in one.
You're wrong, actually. All of science is an act of faith. You yourself have said that theories are just that. They are what we currently believe to be true with regards the the laws of the Universe. They key difference, I think, between science and religion is that when science proves a theory to be false, science subsequently adjusts its beliefs to fall in line with the newly discovered facts. But science, even 99.99999999% certain science, still functions on a basis of belief.
Faith, too, does not stop people from working. You're imagining a farmer saying "I have faith that god will make it rain" and then sitting around doing nothing as he starves to death. But that farmer could just have easily said "I have faith in the ability god gave me to build an irrigation ditch" and then he could have successful crops. It's still faith. He could even say "I have faith in my ability to build an irrigation ditch" and not even think about god, but that is still faith.
Again, I disagree. Beliefs are evidential of some things. Sure, a belief is the boogeyman doesn't make the boogeyman a real, tangible, physical object. But a belief in mathematics does make algebra possible. You can't reach out and touch the number i, or even -1; you can't point to something and say, "see that? That thing right there is the square root of negative one apples. And that thing next to it, that's exactly one less than zero apples." But the existence of those concepts - the belief that they are logical and sound, makes many mathematic problems possible to solve and that does have a tangible effect on the universe we live in.
Dismissing both faith and belief out of hand as irrelevant to the discussion does an injustice to the debate as a whole.
Feel free to quote whatever it is you're paraphasing. I can't be asked to figure out what it is, but it does not sound familiar.
Yes, I asked specific posters to reveal more ideas behind their beliefs. You were not one of them. As I think we were diverting too much from the topic, I discontinued asking for such things.
I think you're confusing my original discussion, hinging on evidence, and my secondary discussion of ideas behind beliefs. Those are two diffirent things. I think Umpa and I agree, the latter was not as productive and became hostile.
You're repeating Umpa and not bothering to read the answer I gave him. Sad.
Too bad, you can't avoid it. You're on a computer right now that was designed by knowledge acquired from science, not faith. The personalized god that you're making up and choosing to believe in has nothing at all to do with the evidential sciences of cosmology or biology (evolution). Wether or not there is a god out there, we know the universe works. Supposing one out of faith doesn't help us understand that universe. I can appreciate your desire to know, logic be damned, how it all began, but agin, that doesn't make a bit of diffirence. Religious fanatics are illogical and almost certainly "wrong." Atheists claim nothing to be "wrong," about. You're creating a dichotomy where none exists.
I don't need one. You do? That's great. But don't demand that I do too.
I invite you to read the thread again, or for the first time, because you have clearly missed the conversation and mis-characterized it in a most dishonest manner.
I don't have a personal concept of god, but I do understand the god concepts of most popular religions and deist philosophers. I would have to assume that this is the common ground.
I don't think so. When a physicist asks his colleages to explain a new concept they've been working on, they are not animating a picture that is already in his head. They're providing empirical evidence that fits together so as to compose a new picture. It is a composit understanding arrived at by evidence. Were we to need an idea wholly in our heads in order to ask about it and have it explained rationally, I shouldn't think that we would have advanced much in the field of science.
Well, there is such a thing as mutual exclusivity, but I do agree not ALL God concepts and religions are mutually exclusive (though a great many are).
You're making a gross assumption that belief in God is inherently at odds with science and the laws of physics. In fact, Einstein said:
This is science. We're unraveling the mysteries of the universal library. Perhaps it is God's library. Perhaps it is no one's library. But there is a library.
Maybe our study of it will reveal where it came from, how it was formed, and why it exists. It seems likely that all of these questions will be answered through science. That does not mean that none of them have been answered through religion. We won't know for certain until our studies are sufficiently advanced to know the contents of every single book in the library.
But I have just given three common beliefs of God which are very different in size, scope, and provability. Heck, I even proved one for you! To be fair, the God-meme theory is not common among religious people, but it is provable.
I disagree. Science relies on hypothesis. Namely, I think that X will happen when I do Y. Or, I think that Q exists, and we can find out by doing P. And so forth. Sometimes the results are surprising or contrary to the original hypothesis, but there is always a conjecture that is clearly framed before any inquiry is begun. Here, it appears that you are expecting a single answer to a very vague "prove that God exists." The conjecture of each person offering their proof is different and needs to be understood that way. We have many different hypotheses in this thread, and many different examinations of them. I assume you're attempting to composite them together, but I personally stipulate that we don't actually have enough information to declare any of our experiments to be "conclusive." The lack of evidence, however, is not proof that evidence does not exist somewhere. As Edison said, "I have not failed. I have only found 999 ways that do not work." Very true, but differing views, in light of a lack of overwhelming evidence, are not necessarily proof of one another's incorrectness.
Let me offer this as well: The laws of nature dictate cause and effect in all things. There is no action which does not have a result, and no results that do not have actions which initiated them. Thus, it is perfectly logical and reasonable to assume that the universe came from somewhere and that some action initiated its creation.
I'd love that to be the definition of god, but that would be harder than convincing brits that i'm a cigarette.
A single answer would be nice. I don't pretend the question isn't vague. I don't think we have anything conclusive either. Again, you seem to be arguing that i'm saying god doesn't exist or can't exist, but that isn't the case.
That's fair, but it begs the question: Why did you start this thread? The desire for proof of an author indicates that you do view it as relevant to the scouring of these books for knowledge.
I am inclined to agree that knowing if there is an author and who that author is would be pertinent, as it could grant a great perspective from which the books were written. I offer this: The religious views of the middle ages that the Earth was the center of the universe provided scientists a perspective from which to approach the problem of the motion of the starts, sun, and planets in the sky. Without this initial perspective - as incorrect as it may have been - would the scientists of the day have figured out that we revolve around the sun?
The existence of the theological explanation of the universe provides framework. Science provides evidence. At some points, they agree (Jesus was a real living person), and at some points they don't (Noah built a boat that held two of every creature in the world on it), and in other places, they simply cannot yet find enough evidence to tangibly say whether or not they agree or disagree (where did the universe come from?).
I'm of the opinion that answering the question of the origins of the universe will be a great leap towards determining if any God exists, but it may not in fact lead us any closer to the answer. In the absence of hard evidence against it, I choose to believe - operate under the assumption - that some sort of higher power did create our universe. I can't prove it to you, but I do believe that this is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the limited evidence at hand.
I think the purpose of most religion, to the individual, is to make personal progress. I think the purpose of science, to the individual, is to make intellectual progress. They are two in the same, as personal progress is a direct result from what we learn from our trials in life. You can argue about the effects religion and science have (had) on the world and whether or not they serve a political purpose (everything involving people effects politics, deal with it), but I think in the end it all boils down to the individual. It's your choice to believe or not to believe. It's your choice to use the science, or forbid the use of the science.
I personally believe everyone is born with a sense of right and wrong (the light of Christ) and as they go through life and somewhat unique experiences that sense is either strengthened, or dulled. We don't have to act one way or another, it's a choice, and I believe that's why we're here. I prefer the optimistic approach over being depressed that one day we're all going to be eaten and distributed through the ground and that's it, I don't blame my problems on anyone and I don't hurt anyone except in defense, what's wrong with that?
I think it's up to the individual to choose which religion is most true(or not believe any) and has the most in common with their innate beliefs. Whatever happens after that, happens. You can't ask someone to not hope for the future.
Ah, but you're taking a literalist view of the question. Might I not too, value the realization that some would come to being confronted with the question? I'm not saying it was rhetorical, because I do leave the general proposition open, but I think there is an element of rhetorical education in the post that you're missing.
I don't think I follow your premise. We were speaking in terms of competition between faith and science. I did not propose that at some point having perspective is impossible or useless. What I proposed was that learning to read the books is a far more valuable thing than having that perspective, espcially since we cannot be certain (until we are totally literate) that we are correct in our assumed perspective. I don't think that I agree a geocentric world view was instrumental to the growth of astronomy.
I disagree. Science does not fill a theological framework. Science construcs that framework just fine by itself. At some point, they might agree or disagree, but that much is coincidental. I invite you to elucidate that argument though, because I don't feel it is very clear to me.
I hold the opinion we may come to understand anything about the universe. I hesitate to make idle speculation about what it would mean because I cannot know what all those things might be. What I espcially will not do; however, is believe. I will hypothesize to the best of the evidence presented me, but in the total absence of evidence I will decline the offer to assert anything. Thusly, I see no reason to assert a higher power or a creator/creation of the universe. I simply have no evidence, limited or otherwise upon which to make a reasonable assumption.
I agree wholeheartedly that we may come to understand anything about the universe. That's what's so exciting about it! However, I differ with you in that I see no reason not to make idle speculation. Concoct a theory, test the theory. Speculate, test the speculation. Tomato, tomato (that expression doesn't work well in text at all).
As for your statement that there's a total absence of evidence, I disagree.
1) We know that the universe operates under a limited set of laws.
2) We know that one of these laws is that there is no action without an equal and opposite reaction.
3) We know that there is a conservation of matter in the universe. That is to say, nothing comes from nowhere, and everything comes from somewhere.
4) We know that the universe began with what is commonly known as the "Big Bang Theory" - that all matter in the universe simultaneously erupted from a single point and that the results of that eruption is directly responsible for everything we can observe today.
This information would then lead us to believe that the universe came from somewhere. That before the Big Bang, there was something. I can't say what it is or was, but our understanding of science is fairly clear that the universe did not spontaneously manifest out of nowhere. There has to be a reason that the Big Bang occurred. The existence of an entity, outside of the laws of physics, with the ability to manipulate (or at least create) the realm of physics, is one possible explanation.
Personally, I find that to be a simpler explanation than the Big Crush theory (that the universe repeatedly expands and collapses in on itself and has existed literally forever with no actual origin) - especially in light of recent findings that the universe's expansion is accelerating, which makes any such Big Crush unlikely.
I also find a God theory to be more satisfactory than a "spontaneous generation" theory of the universe, which would violate the 2nd and 3rd points which I raised above.
I will grant, however, that what we actually know about the instant of universal creation is virtually nothing. We know about the time very near to the instant of creation, but not the actual instant. The results of our scientific attempts to see that point will likely surprise us all.
In the light of the incredible advances in technology required to learn concrete data about this moment, the amount of time and treasure that it takes to make these studies, and the scope of human history and curiosity about where we came from, we can hardly discount the value of religious explanations.
God exists because we can't prove otherwise.
God does not exist because we can't prove he does.
But the evidence before us, the scientific likelihood that something created the universe, is quite compelling.
Edit: I'd like to now refer to the instant that the universe was created as Schrödinger's God Box.
You and I are free to idly speculate on things about which we have no evidence, sure, but prudence would suggest we do not make truth claims based on these speculations.
1. We're actually not aware of how limited to expansive the laws are. Given we already know there is a diffirential between laws at the macro level and the micro level (relativity theory and quantum theory, respectively) I see no reason to suppose that as Feynman said "it may be like an onion, with so many layers we just get tired of peeling."
2. Yes, but we are not entirely aware of how it works at the quantum level or if it actually applies there.
3. Again, this is actually being challenged by quantum theory. Hawking's most recent supposition was that the universe itself may have simply "come from nothing," so I wouldn't agree we have an absolute grasp on this.
4. Indeed, that is the current best explanation we have from empirical evidence for the universe that we see. It however, isn't without points of scientific contention, and it's certainty declines the closer you get to the "bang." It is absolutely uncertain about the singularity state or what we might call the nature of the universe prior to that, if such a thing is relavent to speak about.
I disagree (and to avoid being redundant, see the above list) that we have any such certainty about it. We can further understand the laws of our universe and the big bag, but I don't think we can presently say we know it was an action with "reason," so much as simple probability. We know that it took place, but we don't know much about the context in which it took place. An outside entity is a plausible explanation given what we know, but we have no more evidence for it than simply saying the universe was always there as a singularity or that the singularity just appeared from nothing. All three of those suppositions are equally unfounded idle speculations.
That isn't to say we'll never know which is more likely, but as of right now I maintain that we do not have the knowledge upon which to make an assertion that isn't simply wishful thinking.
Yes, i'd say we don't have grounds on which to substantiate the idea the universe regularly expands and contracts based on our red-light-shift observations.
What we find satisfactory is immaterial to the discussion, unless you want to imbue our subconsious minds with knowledge that we cannot assume ourselves to posess.
Curiosity is one thing and something I would dare not tread upon. Religious explanations; however, are something else entirely. If you are to make a case that religion hasn't hindered our rational understanding, good luck to you. The burning of Alexandria alone likely set us back a few hundred years. To say nothing of the number of scientific and philsophical minds put to noose, crucifix, and fire over the centuries.
I take a very ambilavent view of religion myself. I abosolutely value introspection, and meditation, but none of those things are unique to religion. Those religions who champion those aspects over dogmatic adherence to static beliefs are not harmful either. What I find fault with are religions who stake claims to truth and actually function againt curiosity. Being a historian I cannot totally blind myself to the culture that came out of our religious past, nor can I claim that religion was always a hurdle to jump for mankind, but I think the case can be made that the time for religions to stop making truth claims has arrived.
And I simply combine like terms here and say "We do not know if there is any such thing as God."
Again, I disagree. Our scientific knowledge has yet to present us with evidence that would make such a claim "compelling," at all. Better to bathe in the chill water of doubt and be clean, than to bask in the warmth of possibly false assumptions, which might be piss. =)
You're a little confused about the term Atheist. It isn't a dogma and it doesn't require that I turn anything down that is evidence. We don't accept the notion that god is evident because we have not see any such evidence. Atheist isn't a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby or not smoking is a habbit. We have the same rational standard for evidence as everyone else. Theists just don't adhere to that standard when it comes to god.
Religious texts are as credible as we can prove them to be. I have, personally, studied over dozens of archological and anthropoligical treatises on the subject of ancient hebrew culture. I'll tell you right now it doesn't do a lot for the crediblity of the old testament. Of course, that isn't to say the whole history presented is entirely fiction, but a good deal of it has been made very unlikely in the face of physical evidence. Even Isreali university athropologists now agree that the exodus likely never took place at all, that's a large part of the story in and of itself.
I don't know if you're suggesting I hold the bible to a much lower standard than the rest of the ancient texts I study, but I can tell you right now the claim that Jesus ascended into heaven is no diffirent than the claim that Achillies was immortal except for his heel. They could both be true and we have no grounds upon which to substantiate such a claim. The fact the claim was made (and don't get me started on the number of people in history who have claimed to be the progeny of god) is not evidence.
Regardless, even this creation theory of hawking's has gravity as the grand creator of the universe - it is not a true spontaneous creation theory, as it does have a cause that led to the effect of the universe's creation. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in M-Theory and Hawking's views of Big Bang gravitational spontaneous generation, but he's not ruling out the possibility of a creator, merely opening a door for the absence of a conscious entity having been one.
Regardless, I hold that a possibly false assumption is all we ever have, and that through conscious knowledge of that possibility, we develop more refined means of putting our beliefs to the test.
The comparison that you make between the chill water of doubt and the warmth of possibly false assumptions sounds more like nihilism than atheism. you're comparing the belief in nothing to the belief in something, while your avowed standpoint is that of someone who, in contrast, has seen nothing to believe in, which is a very different thing.
Edit: Your description of atheist in the above post is excellent however, I want to make sure you know that I saw that!
If the universe have to be created by an entity outside of the laws of physics, with the ability to manipulate (or at least create) the realm of physics (a god).
Where did this entity/god come from? Who or what created it?
You don't accept that fact that the universe may have always been there but you accept that this so called entity/god is there to create and/or manipulate our world.
----done----
I don't demand you do anything, but this is the only way to prove something that can't be proved, that was the original goal of your topic. This logic excercise is for now the "best evidence" you can have that a god must exist. So it is that I'm not the only one to use it to propose you that god is atleast a possibility.
Answering this with "we don't know what science will discover" solves experimental problems, but not logic problems (yeah logics again)
---
BTW Don't ignore or bash an argument as you been doing without saying what you want. This is the best way to not be proven wrong. This is dishonest.
State your premises and your goal so people can talk. If not, ask a Mod to lock it.
Yes, as I said, he suggested no first-cause is required. I guess I have to repeat myself again when I say that I am NOT ruling out any possibility of god. I'm simply showing that what we do know does not imply god any more than it disregards god. You argued we had reason to think a higer power was at work. I'm saying we have no such reason to assume so. The universe, as we are coming to understand it, seems to work without a god. We certainly don't understand it entirely, or even well, but that understanding of our current limitations does not imply god one way or the other.
Creation is a poor choice of words. Also, again, i'm not ruling anything out either. I'm simply refuting the idea we must infer god. We have no reason to.
I hold that doubt, skepticism, and a continued investigation of our universe through the lense of empirical science will help us refine our knowledge of the universe. I also hold that pre-concieved notions about what truths should be found is not helpful in that endeavor.
I've been explicit about the fact that I hold to no beliefs and that I won't assert things for which I have no evidence. I'm comparing making an assertion based on wishful thinking to simply holding firm in the rational position where one cannot make any such assertion. I'll wear the badge of irony and nihilism if the shoes fit, but I don't think either typecast diminishes my argument.
I think this video (and i've linked it here previously) states my point of view nicely.
Thank you.
Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at here. I'm going to move on.
You seem to have a tenuous-at-best grasp on the word "logic," and what it means. If you want my premise, read the OP. Sorry to be terse, but you're literally not making sense.