Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Wed, 28 May 2008 16:52:01 +0100

Hang on - wasn't this argument a joke Douglas Adams fitted into 'Hitch Hiker's Guide'?

Wherever the origin the punchline's not bad - "'That was easy', said Man who then went on to prove that black was white and got run over on the next Zebra Crossing."

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:28:03 +0100

we talk of what is practical and impractical and what way we much lean because of this practiciality

what is practical about either theism or atheism- even though i am a christian i myself would consider myself and agnostic because i realize that i do not "know" God, jewish and the essentials of christian theology demand this, that God himself is not knowable only his qualities are as found in romans: for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are cleary seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Sun, 04 May 2008 15:21:34 +0100

Ahughman:
Whats up, nice to meet you:
---------------------
Science only proves that God cannot be proved by science. There is a big difference.
---------------------
"The only argument that Theists have left is to change their definition of "God" into something that science cannot yet explain."

I don't believe they are "changing" their definitions of God, at least my viewpoint has always been God, insofar as humanity has come in understanding, can not be defined. We don't have a word, a mental image, a scientific proof, so we can't provide an adequate definition for ourselves, never mind for everyone to agree on.
---------------------------
"For example "Where did the universe come from? this must be god". We as a human race cannot yet explain a few things, but please note, we were once asking "where did man come from? this must be god", but in the end we realized, man came from primates, evolving over billions of years."

Evolution is not incompatible with God.
This goes along with my statement that science can only prove that God cannot be proved by science. And for many this means God cannot exist, because we rely so heavily on tangible proof.
-------------------------
"Another argument in the validation of god is to change the definition into anything else. for example "God is love"."

We're not actually changing the definition... this comes from the Bible. Its not a definition, but one part of a description. God Is Love. I believe that all forms of Love come initially from God/The Holy Spirit... it is His connection to us, and once He became Man, our connection to each other. Of course since we are spiritually broken beings we pervert this Love into what most people now refer to as love.
--------------------
"This is similar to saying "God is the sun, and I believe in the sun, so I believe in god" (even though we all know hat the sun is a giant ball of burning gas in the center of our solar system)."

Not an adequate metaphor for the God is Love idea. However, how can we be fully sure that the Sun does not have some spiritual connection. You can be, as you are a man of science and require proof beyond the metaphysical, but others believe that Space, in itself, is not Empty.
---------------------
"Or to quote a member in another discussion on this site "God is everything including nothing". We already have a definition for "everything including nothing", it's called existence. This argument does not validate the existence of a higher being it simply takes the idea of "god" or the word "god" a puts it safely behind the definition of something else."

This goes down the road of God as an energy/multidimensional entity. I'm sure this is a part of His existence, that which we call the Holy Spirit, but still not adequate alone in its description of God.
-------------------
"God, as most of the world defines it, was disproved some time ago."

And therein lies the problem. As we can see with human descriptions of God in the varying languages of the Old and New Testaments, mankind's perception and understanding of God has indeed progressed from the archaic "old man with a big white beard mixing up the ingredients for the universe in a pot." You can't hold the rest of the believers responsible for this outdated view.
-------------------
"It's possible people hold onto the notion of god because it brings something important to their life. Meaning, or guidance."

Thats one of the reasons, but it is not a notion, rather it is noticed through experience and communion (however primitive it still is.) Communion with God is as easy as breathing. Its talking with God where we hit boundaries.
--------------------
"But I encourage those who cling to the word "God" as a form of guidance to look in all forms of philosophy. The same teachings that Jesus taught exist in plenty of world philosophies, they are not unique to the bible."

Yes, but His relationship to humanity is. He was addressing outdated practices of His time while still remaining relevant for the future.
------------------
"Nor are the philosophies of Muhammad unique to the Koran, or ancient asian philosophy unique to Confucius."

Can't speak for Muhammad, I haven't investigated Islam thoroughly, but Confucius may or may not have gleaned some of his ideas from the Tao Te Ching, whose writers historicity is a matter of debate, but is said to have met with Confucius.
--------------------------
"You can get the same lessons the Jesus taught out of "To Kill a Mockingbird"."

Sorry, thats just a ridiculous statement in essence. Jesus came first at any rate.
---------------------
"There are common philosophies in all cultures to help explain how we should live our lives. That commonality is not, however, a big man in the sky who created the universe. It's morality."

Yes, but many have different forms of morality, so that argument doesn't hold up.
------------------------
"There is little left in the universe that cannot be explained by science."

I disagree. What of Dark Matter/Dark Energy? Quantum Theory vs. Physics? String Theory? Multiple Dimensions? There is much within the scientific community that requires faith as well. (This definition of "faith" as being future hope and assurance of proof.)
---------------------
"As the argument for God is dismantled piece by piece, theists like to place their definition of god into the small portion of existence that cannot yet be explained."

God in essence cannot be explained. It is in no way a small part, though...
---------------------------------
"But at this point, they are no longer asking to disprove God. What they are really asking to disprove is "existence" or "love" or anything else they can put the name God onto."

Who? Where? When? These people do not speak for all believers.
-------------------------
"These remaining definitions of god are hypotheses that have not been tested, they hold no ground because they have no physical evidence to support them."

I agree they have no physical evidence, but that in no way means they hold no ground unless you are of purely scientific mind.
----------------------
"Heres a parable for you theists:

So if we were to tally up the metaphorical score:

As the game of answering the questions of the universe and all it's workings nears the end of the final quarter the score is:

Science has answered, with evidence: 1,025,291 questions

Theism has answered: 0 questions.

30 second to go, before all questions are answered. Good luck, theists, and agnostics."

Ugh... I won't respond to this... Thats a bit hypocritical of you to say the least...
----------------------
"God: (noun) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. A superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human forces; a diety."

Not an adequate definition, therefore your argument falls apart.
-----------------------
"Proof: (noun) Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of statement.

Science proves god does not exist."

Science proves that science's definition of god cannot be proven.
------------------------

At what point can we agree that we are speaking different languages?

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:00:34 +0100

ss, I agree, science is coming up with more evolved definitions of God, than religion.

No, not yet. If the runt turns out to be orange, there will be another example that God takes requests.

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:22:09 +0100

hz, God IS a concept.
The IDEA of god evolves BECAUSE it is a concept.
The answers we get from science are one hell of a lot more credible than the answers we get from religion...

(On a lighter note, did your cat have kittens? (not that I want one...))

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:30:53 +0100

Good point muyscks, improve not disprove.

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:19:05 +0100

hz... science doesn't disprove, so much as improve a theory. It's ability to take in and absorb and adapt as better information comes in sets it apart from the religious closed book method.

AH, lovely post, enjoyed it a lot.
You'll discover now a welter of spiritualist and pantheist and theist/deist objections to what you've posited. They mostly have put their god beyond reason, so throwing logic at them is a mostly fruitless exercise. And then Skeptic44 will argue does the fruit really exist!

All good clean fun.

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:15:09 +0100

Can the meaning of a word not change over time? Over thousands of years?

Can the idea of God not evolve as the humans that created it also evolve?

Has God ever been tangeable or has it always been more of a concept?

Science continually proves itself wrong by coming up with new theories, doesn't that lead one to think, that things science "understands" now will be disproved later?

Why be so sure of the answers science is providing, when science itself is not?

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:17:56 +0100

Are you sure the universe isn't 13.74 billion years old?

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:06:54 +0100

cerenziam: Sounds good. I can understand your point. We define god and prove differently. What you define as god to me is spirituality, or soul. I just wouldn't give it the same name as the christian deity. Whatever spirituality is, it is not what flooded the earth for 40 days, so I don't know why people hold onto that notion. And when I say prove, of course you've realized I mean the proof that we use everyday rather than an absolute theoretical proof. So we just disagree. Which is peachy.

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:41:59 +0100

AHughman:

Ah, I see, excuse me, I didn't have time to read everything carefully. But then I will simply have to disagree with your 2nd definition of proof. It appears to be a loose dictionary definition, and as I expressed in my last post, many influential people, namely Hume, wouldn't agree to it.
But despite any of that, I would also argue that the proof of God's existence in fact lies within your first area of proving as I can't think of any argument regarding this issue that doesn't involve logic or metaphysics - both areas, thanks to Kant, are drawn from synthetic a priori judgments (meaning if you attack either system for its ability to gain truth, you also attack mathematics).

And I clearly wasn't attacking your rhetoric, but your approach that appeals to science. For a very long time, as mentioned above, the question of God's existence has been an investigation for metaphysics, formal logic, analytic philosophy, etc. If you tell every bit of science that you now know to any philosopher of the past, it would be meaningless to their arguments, either for or against God.
I don't care that you are atheist, as I was one and am still in suspended judgment, but my point in my last post was that you should give respect to those many people, some who are far more intelligent than we, who after considering all the evidence you just proposed and more objections you haven't even thought of, think it's perfectly rational to believe in God - because science does not disprove God's existence.

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:57:30 +0100

Oh that was my bad, I forgot that Atheists only argue against the Christian God. You don't seem to have any knowledge of real Buddhism or Taoism by the way you were talking about them. Let me inform you my friend, it is a much more advanced form of spirituality, it's not a mainstream religion like we see in the western and middle eastern monotheism. Though I am not a follower of one specific belief, the eastern Religions are much more advanced.

I would say Jesus of Nazareth's original teachings were just as every bit good as the eastern teachings, but some people got a hold of it and made it seem like he was the son of the God of Abraham (the Jews God). Now don't you think that if he really was the son of God there would be no Jews waiting for God to send his kid down to Earth and the Christians say that Jesus really was the son of God? So that right there proves all Christians wrong.

When you think of God now, just think of all creation that ever existed and ever will exist, now think about how we are existing inside of this infinite which means you are a part of it which makes you a finite version of the infinite. I've got a pretty good imagination, I think you do to by the way you go in depth with your science, now think about all of the stuff that you are imagining that's being created by you, who was created by "God", which makes you a co-creator. So now that you got it that you are a sub-creator or co-creator along with "God" your a small or equal version of "God", which makes you a part of "God" and able to be "God" within your own mind. Maybe you have dreams, those are evidence of you creating. Did you ever think that "God" could be dreaming of us or creating us by choice just to see the finite version of itself? (Hopefully "God" doesn't wake up if he's dreaming us up) The "God" that I see with my own two eyes is the physical world that surrounds me, basically creation. So I tend to think of "God" as some force of intelligent infinity, meaning that it's infinite to the infinite power and knows exactly what it's doing.

Knowledge is the key to the universe, and science is the key to the physical universe that we dwell in. There is much more going on than just the physical in this universe, too much phenomena to think that Science can explain it all. Some day science will encompass a spiritual discovery science branch, but I think that can only happen with individuals asking themselves what they truly think about spiritually. Spiritual knowledge deals with intangibles, science and math just can't deal with intangibles it needs numbers and physical evidence, so with that being said only the individual can discover spirituality at the state of evolution we humans are in now. Maybe once we evolve to the next step we can be capable of understanding what we really are, we seem to understand our universe a lot better than monkeys and we evolved from them, so for now just be happy and help out your fellow man.

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:27:01 +0100

cerenziam: You read wrong. I said nothing can be proven 100% except in the world of Mathematics... and that the word, proof, in all other cases is defined by evidence that supports the truth, and in no other cases does "proof" mean "100%" as you said. So besides math, I can prove plenty of things without having to prove it "100%" or in an "absolute sense". as you put it.

So the sentence "science proves that god does not exist" is accurate.

As far as attacking my rhetoric, congratulations, you've added no insight except that you disagree. I will read some Sartre and Nietszche tho. Thanks for that.

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:58:22 +0100

You start off nicely by saying nothing can be proven 100% except in the world of Mathematics, Logic, etc., but then you somehow say that science does "prove" things in an absolute sense? Read some Hume - science only describes the world as we have thus far experienced it. Science by no means "proves" anything, even the simplest things. To Hume, since any new event is a future matter and since we cannot "know" about future matters, there is no grounds to think that movement will result from one billiard ball hitting another instead of the Beatles materializing on the pool table playing "She Loves You." Weird, I know, but Hume's arguments for this view of science's shortcomings are fairly airtight and any present philosopher of science, who doubtless love science just as much as you seem to, will concede the point. Therefore, science doesn't "disprove" the existence of God any more than it can "prove" anything.

And you talk like your post somehow presents something esoteric that few have ever thought of. While this may be true of the majority, I can say with confidence that scholars who constantly deal with questions like the existence of God are miles ahead of all of your objections, whether they are arguing for or against God. Even a light amount of investigation would manifest the low-level argumentation of people like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris (him especially), whose approaches resemble yours, in comparison with other great thinkers. You want atheism presented in its true, raw form, read some Sartre or Nietszche - but their conclusions aren't always so heartwarming as these authors today present atheism.

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:49:42 +0100

What i was trying to say is that it is always posible to place god in place of any question that is unanswerable. So if there is infinite questions then anything that reamains unexpalined will alays be filled with god by someone. And as soon as thats answered another question will come up, because i dont thik we can ever answer everything.

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:35:01 +0100

Bryan: Your question is testament to your inability to understand, or read what I have written. I will not respond because my answer has already been written in my original post.

Skeptic: Interesting point. I would say though, that every question that we have ever asked, ever, has been either answered by science, or not answered at all. (answered correctly that is, or "proven"). Theism has never answered any of the questions we ask with evidence or proof. Whether or not their is an end to our questions, or whether or not infinity exists beyond mathematics, is irrelevant I think to the argument for a deity. Thank you for your input!

Jeff: I've read your post a few times over, but I can't quite understand your argument. Nothing I said was lies, and attacking my character as "ignorant" or "assuming too much" or "spreading false lies" does not help prove anything, in either direction. I think you may be talking about some quantum theory when you say "all physical matter originates in waves and vibrations. Therefore since it is a wave and a vibration our human eyes or any instrument that we create will ever see the universe or even our planet in it's truest form, because human's are not perfect, our brains are not perfect either" I can understand that. But what your talking about is science, and all it says is that what our brains interpret is far different, or lacking in perception of what is really there. Not that God therefor exists. Your making a leap while reason cannot. Before commenting back, please read my original post. I think you missed the basic point and attacked my character before grasping the concept. -No offense taken.

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:14:16 +0100

Excellent! You are a gentleman and a scholar, sir! (assuming gender) Very understandable and concise.

Now, prepare to have this theory dismantled, dissected, and disputed right before your very eyes!

(Not by me, I agree with it)

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:03:40 +0100

First of all that picture is entirely wrong, I wasn't even going to read this because I could tell that you were a severely ignorant person. After I did read the post, I got written proof that you are severely ignorant.

You somehow assume that you and your neighbor and your parents view the world in the same exact way. That's what science would lead us to believe. Of course I am a man that believes in science, seeing as how you act I probably know a lot more about science than you do my friend.

Back to the point, science teaches us how the illusion we live in is in it's "truest" form. I put the quotes because at our human state of mind we shall never find the truth in anything, we can only come close. If you were so scientifically enlightened you would know that all physical matter originates in waves and vibrations. Therefore since it is a wave and a vibration our human eyes or any instrument that we create will ever see the universe or even our planet in it's truest form, because human's are not perfect, our brains are not perfect either. You assume so much my friend, you act as if science has found everything out and we have only been following the laws of science for about oh 500 years and only on one planet.

Here is a fact, the universe is infinite, the infinite is the only constant in our universe that we simple humans can trust, and we can't even imagine what infinite really is, and that is why we are imperfect. It's not an infinite amount of time, or infinite space, it is just infinite everything. You need to get a better idea of how things work before you come on this website and start spreading false lies.

I would suggest you learn to unbias your opinion and get a more open mind because you just might learn something important. It's only because I understand how you are that I am treating you this way too my friend, please take no offense. If I didn't love humanity I would leave them in their old ways and to have them stay as close minded as they always were. Let's hope that you learned something today.

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:56:37 +0100

Comparing the 'idea of God' (because some aren't that bad) to little red riding hood or Santa is a bit of a stretch isnt it?

Comment on: Proof God Does Not Exist (really)

Bigthink — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:49:24 +0100

Wow an incrediblly strong, cohesive, and interesting argument sir. Just a few questions, does your analisis of p* lead to the conclussion that everything by definition is infinite, or atleast existance in a genral sense? That being the case how can all the questions ever be answered? The more questions we answer the futher we push up the frontir of knoledge, but in order to answer everything there needs to be an end.

"he could not prove that everyone wasn't just a detached brain sitting in a vat and having signals sent to it, but it is impractical to think that we are."

Eaxactlly my line of thinking, the same aplies to god god can not be disproven beyond all doubt hence we can not discount it as imposibility, but to take the idea seriouslly in daly life is impractical. Again this outllok is why i consider myself an agnostic that leans toward atheism.
Because we can also not prove the little red riding hood to be false, but it is impractical to base your life on a story of a talking wolf. To me the existance of god is as likley as the existance of talking wolves, they fundamentally fall in the same category, but that does not mean we can discount either completlly.

Again i enjoyed reading that very much.