Assumptions:

A) There exists an infinite number of universes (not necessarily simultaneously) (evidence: Quantum/string theory).
B) A non-zero number of universes that can give rise to intelligent life (evidence: Earth).
C) There is a non-zero chance of a given intelligent lifeform continuing scientific advancement without self-destruction.
D) It is possible to leave a given universe and enter another universe.
E) There is a non-zero chance of a universe capable of sustaining intelligent life such that there is no natural limit on advancement up the Kardashev scale.

Given this, it would seem almost inevitable that:

A form of intelligent life will arise somewhere, and continue up the Kardashev scale to the point of being able to create, form, control and visit a second universe,
That this will occur multiple times,
That at least one of these races will actively use these capabilities with the purpose of intelligent design and creation,
And, most interestingly:
That in such situations, the designed universe may be created such that it permits recursion (i.e., the created universe permits a race which can rise to the point of creating a universe).

Any thoughts? Obviously, D and E have not been proven, but they do not seem unreasonable.
This message was last edited by the GM at 12:19, Mon 03 Jan 2011.

D is wild supposition- given that tehre is no guaruntee of similarity of natural law from one universe to another (and in fact string theory is not evidence for multiple universes, string theory is a model which includes multiple universes but is not the only extant model not is there strong evidence for it as a cosmological model at this point- expiriments scheduled for 2012 and 2014 will illuminate aspects of this issue which remain untested)
E is almost certainly false, given that within the mainstream version of string theory (if that is not itself an oxymoron) every universe is cyclical with a begining and end which in and of itself would constitute a limit on technological progress.

By your argument, E is only false if D is false. D is indeed 'wild supposition', but I don't think we can argue one way or another. It certainly does not seem unreasonable, however.

It certainly does not seem unreasonable, however.

Leaving a universe and entering another would cause a violation of the laws of conservation of energy by adjusting the total mass of both universes.

No, if D is false then E is false, however D can be true- though this is a very low probability issue without necessitating that E is true. The heat death or equivelent of any gven universe is simply one limitation on the existance of an infinitely ascending technological curve. If you use a supposition that D is true to evade that issue then you still have to cope with the issue of differing laws of physics between universes which would then necessitate that technology would, at the point of traansferance, move backwards as they society adapts to a new universe whose laws of physics are not yet understood. Given then that any technology must exist within it's own finite universe- both in terms fo resources and time, even given a hypothetical 'jump start' in transitioning between universes there would still exist a finite limitation of technology which is in fact unique to each universe.

It would not be a violation because the law of conservation of energy applies to closed systems. If the universe is not in fact a closed system, which has been proposed by much smarter individuals than myself, than the law does not apply.


Silveroak, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that:
~D -> ~E (which I think is a given)
and
E heavily implies (but does not necessitate) D (which I had not considered, but makes sense).



Okay, I can understand that. I feel like it's arguing semantics, and I don't believe it invalidates the conclusions that follow. How would you word E to better cover the necessary speed bumps you're describing?

My brain hurts why be so complicated you either believe if a higher power or don't its a matter of faith. There is no need to prove anything.

That and come on noone can prove another universe exists so the basic line of reasoning if flawed, you prove that to a scientific certainty then the rest of the case might be an issue. Did anyone scientifically PROVE there is ,in fact, at least one other universe?

Katisura's right.  It goes further.  If in fact you have two universes with some ability to move between them.. and therefore, two universes causally interconnected, since each can now be influenced by an event in the past in the other universe...

Mathwise you don't have two universes anymore.  You have one, with some sort of "domain boundary" dividing it into two sections.

So everthing is still conserved, moving from one section to another.

The really tricky thing is what happens if some difference in physics between the two universes allows exists that can be exploited to produce energy.

But that's for those Princeton and Oxford physicists to work out.

Besides which conservation of mass and energy is only a law pf physics in *our* universe, there could hypothetically be universes for which that limitation might not apply.

In terms of what you are striving here the question is not whether technology can advance inifinitely but whether technology can advance sufficiently to be considered godlike. Of course definitions of godlike technology will vary widely as well, but within the constraint of your conclusion (that in some universe people will be using technology to manipulate life etc. in other universes) any universe where technology can climb to a level suffieicnt to accomplish this end is sufficient to the conclusion.

Of course I would add teh additional constraint that these hypothetical persons could manipulate life etc in *some* universes, since with a variety of laws of physics approaching infinity for all practical purposes (and indeed still hypothetically) it approaches impossibility that the inhabitants of any given universe could affect the inhabitants of every other universe.

*disclaimer- the aforementioned issues do not in fact prove or disprove the existance of God, only certain models of godlike entities who achieved this status through technological development. If, hypothetically speaking there existed a universe which was in and of itself sentient and able to control it's collision state with other universes then it would inherantly fit the deist concept of God as it relates to our universe. The potential existance and interaction of multiple such universes simply hurts the brain to think about.

I had not considered that. That is a strong point.

Highly speculative, and untestable, but not able to be discounted off-the-cuff.  A bit question mark, in my view, but that doesn't necessarily harm the proof (it's okay to end up with "IF there are an infinite number of universes, THEN...").


That ones pretty solid.


For how long?  Or, are we talking about each 'instant?'  A non-zero chance of carrying on advancing forever, or just for a finite period of time?  The latter seems obvious, then former less so.


This seems like complete speculation (though, again, that's not necessarly a problem), and does raise the question of what a "universe" is, if one can move between them.


I'm not sure the Kardashev scale is particularly important for the task at hand.  Is what makes something "a god" the amount of energy it can harness?  What does "energy" mean in other universes?



It sort of boils down to:
1.  There's an infinite number of universes (so anything with a finite chance of occuring will happen an infinite number of times)
2.  There's a finite chance of any given universe giving rise to intelligent life (thus, with 1, there's an infinite number of universes with intelligent life)
3.  there's a finite chance than any example of intelligent life will progress to god-like levels (thus, with 2 and 1, there will be an infinite number of examples of intelligent life advancing to god-like levels).

Which is a fine argument if we accept the assumptions, though it doesn't say anything about whether there is a god-like super-intelligence involved in our universe, just that they exist somewhere in the multi-verse.

I always get a bit skeptical when dealing with infinities and probalities.  Things tend to get out of wack when we go down that route (especially when expected values get involved, though thankfully in this case that isn't a problem).  When you say "non-zero" in your assumptions, you really need to say "finite," as an infintesimal probability may not do the job.

I would agree that in general, if we accept the multi-verse model, it will follow that many, many strange things will be going on somewhere in the multi-verse.  What that means for ours, though, is much less clear to me.

Well, I've got a better counter than my last one: No amount of technology will ever make a species capable of violating the laws of physics of whatever universe they're in at the moment. So they may be able to become extremely powerful, but they will not be 'god'.

Hypothetically by utelizing loopholes in differing physics a species which could transfer between universees might be able to apparently violate teh laws of one. For example, if we find a universe and somehow manage to travel to it which conservation of mass and energy do not apply (or better matter/energy can be created but not destroyed- consider teh hypothetical end of the universe scenario for that!) we could then import matter/energy from that universe to our own.

However another limitation has occured to me in terms of the proposed 'proof' which is that it manages to get from a finite to infinite number of universes by indicating that they do not necessarilly exista t teh same time. Leaving aside questions such as the nature of time and how it might differe between universes it also adds levels of complexity to the issue of brigibility in that a number of the potentially inifinite universes that this hypothesis leans upon will not be accessible to each other simply because they do not coexist. For example if the current M-theory model of cosmology is correct it would seem that 'our' universe essentially reincarnates every so many trillion years as it achieves heat death and then collides again with another universe. Obviously we could never reach from our current universe to a previous or future universe within the same brane-matrix that we exist within.

I wouldn't go so far as to say 'highly speculative' (at least not without branding all of theoretical physics as 'highly speculative'). From my understanding, it's a widely accepted aspect of quantum physics right now - that universes are a natural, if relatively (if one can have 'relative' in this context) phenomenon starting at the level of the quantum foam, wherein a quantum singularity event expands to such levels. The question simply becomes, 'what exists outside of our universe, and can there be a limit to it?' If the supra-universe quantum foam setting exists outside of time, it is by definition infinite, and there will be an infinite number of universes formed by it.

This is compounded by a simple examination of the statistical probabilities of a universe forming meeting the requirements of supporting life. In a nutshell, scientists such as Stephen Hawking, have said that the odds of such are extremely small. These are not just the odds of supporting life as we know it, but ANY complicating conglomeration of matter with sufficient time to evolve into life, under any circumstances. The clear conclusion is, either we are *tremendously* lucky, or this is happening lots and lots of times.



Not in each instant. However, if you select one universe with one intelligent life-form, the probability of it continuing advancement is non-zero, until it reaches stage 5 of the Kardashev scale (since that's the ultimate end of this postulate). More formally, it should be written, 'there exists such intelligent lifeforms that have a non-zero probability...' but that seemed less fluid to read, and I'm not writing for a purely scientific audience :P



Yes, like I pointed out, this is the point that causes me the most concern. There are theories which make it possible to cross universes, but atm, it's still both theoretical and speculative.



The Kardashev scale I use as a matter of convenience. If a species is capable of harnessing all or most of the energy of the universe, that means they have the technological prowess to alter the universe itself - and to perform actions that, from our point of view (to allude to Clarke), 'is indistinguishable from magic'.

There is certainly the possibility that a species might be able to complete such feats at a lower level of technological advancement, but I didn't care to write out the additional probabilities, because I didn't feel it really added anything to the argument. The hinge point is more D than it is E.




Correct.



No, however, a technologically advanced civilization will understand the laws of physics better than a less advanced civilization, and as such will be able to violate the understood laws of physics of that less advanced civilization. Again, to point to Clarke, sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic.

Certainly one could imagine that a fellow with a helicopter and a loudspeaker back in 2,000 BC could have quite an impact on the theological development of the time, for instance.

However, more generally, what I'm hoping to allude to is that universes can be created (because it happened), which suggests that universes can be intentionally created. And just as technology permits us to better manipulate functions in the physical universe, a more advanced race could better manipulate those same functions. Basic features like guiding evolution through the introduction of retro-viruses, manipulating the formation of planets and stars and so on are not violating the laws of physics, but are actions we consider 'godlike'.



Why is this obvious?

I'd agree that the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics is accepted by many people who know a lot more about physics than I do, but I'd stick by the statement that it's highly speculative.  It's not, as far as I know, a testable hypothesis (or, rather, no one has come up with a way to test it, as far as I know).  It's one interpretation of the findings we have, but it's not something we can currently check.

On the topic of the probability of a universe meeting the requirements for life, I think that's based on a number of tacit assumptions for which we have (and possibly can't have, if we're restricted to our own universe) no evidence for or against.  How many possible ways are there for a universe to form?  Are physical constants just picked randomly out of a hat (in which case it is indeed very unlikely), or are they related in some way that we have yet to discover which limits the set of 'possible universes' significantly?  I don't think anyone is currently in a position to answer that kind of question.  Since we only have a sample of one universe to work with, any predictions about the statistical likelihood of any of its traits are by necessity entirely speculative.

All that said, I don't mean "speculative" to be taken in a negative way.  Speculative doesn't mean wrong, just that we're dealing with possibilities, not certainties with this assumptions.


Okay, I think I see what you meant now, though I think this leads to an odd way of describing the heart of the matter.  I think it'd be more direct to state the assumption as "it is possible for an intelligent life to become 'gods' via technological advancement, and that the probability of any given instance of intelligent life doing so is non-zero."  The assumption that 'godhood' can be reached via technological advancement is non-trivial enough that I think it should be made explicit.  In part because it gives us the definition of 'god' used for the proof (which is different than most people probably have in mind when reading the word--especially when capitalized!)


This is a bit different from "god" though, and quite a big different from "God," I'd argue.  Not necesarilly a fault with the proof, but perhaps one with the thread title ;) (though making it more accurate would probably generate less posts, so I'm in favor of provacative titles).

Yeah, I'm working on my 'embellish the truth a bit to get people to read, and hide the dirty math bits underneath' skills. Working out okay?

Full disclosure, I've also been reading WAAAY too much stuff about Kip Thorne, FTL, time travel, and so on as of late, so it's where my brain is.

I'll also say that this matches very neatly with the LDS theory of God, which I find fascinating. The non-LDS Christian assumption seems to be that there is only one God anywhere, and He always was God, which has always bothered me a bit as a philosophy.

The reason that it is obviously imposible to reach future or past univerese within teh same brane-matrix as our own is that they never temporally coexist with ours nor does our universe allow temporal travel of the type that would allow a transition to and from such a universe. Of course tehre is also some question as to what portion of natural laws are intrinsic to this particular brane and which ones are artifacts of the peculiar resonance of this universe-incarnation, but I don't know if we'll ever get a good answer to that.

Why is that obvious? Do you have a proof for it? There are many dimensions beyond our basic three or four, and possibly many meta-universes beyond this one. I think saying we cannot travel to past or future universes is as speculative as saying we can.

I'm not saying that we can't travel to past or future univeres, I'm saying that we cannot travel to past or future versions of our universe- after the heat death of this universe 9according to the main model of m theory) our universe will collide with another one and that impact will 'reincarnate'' our universe in another form with the same brane- that is what I am saying we cannot access.

I don't know. I feel pretty comfortable saying, if we can travel from our universe to another universe (to another brane), then we could simply wait out the death of our original universe and travel back to that brane when a new universe is formed. Of course, that is also assuming that universes are formed on the same branes, rather than a 1:1 ratio between branes and universes.

We could in theory travel to another brane then bake to this one after the death and rebirth of our own universe (possibly) what we could not do is move *back* to our original universe through this method.

As to the presumption it is part and parcel of the same theory (string/ M-theory) which was invoked at teh begining of this discussion as to the possibility of multiple - and presumedly inifinte worlds. If we throw out the idea of multiple consecutive universes within the same brane then we also throw out the entire brane- string cosmology since that model of successive universe is the foundation for the idea of multiple universes. Otherwise we are dealing with inifinitely rubber science as the foundation of the 'proof'.

Not sure that's relevant to the argument.

(But why not? If it's possible to travel back in time, which seems it may be such, might it not to travel from universe A to universe B, wait until A is destroyed, then, for fun, go back in time to before A is destroyed?)



I don't recall ever hearing about this when studying string theory. Do you have a reference?

You mean you don't watch organ Freeman's Through The Wormhole? M theory (the successor to string theory) has been covered pretty extensively in the majority of episodes.

And the evidence is pretty conclusive that true time travel is not possible- either you would be visiting an alternate universe which exists in a past frame of reference (which would be a different brane) or you would not be able to travel to the past.

I didn't know Morgan Freeman was a physicist... Is there anywhere I can look it up?



(Assuming you're talking about traveling into the past. Traveling into the future happens every day. We've documented subatomic particles traveling at near-light speed experiencing extreme time dilation, for instance.)

I have not seen any evidence for that. In fact, quite to the contrary. Kip Thorne has been postulating quite aggressively on the possibility and what is required for it. So has Norokov. Stephen Hawking for a while said it was impossible, but then retracted his statement. In fact, as far as I can tell, from my own research:
1) Traveling into the past will occur whenever you exceed light speed, and around certain anomalies such as black holes, or as a result of quantum effects.
2) It is very possible that it happens every day, it's just on a scale we have not measured yet.

He's not, he just hosts the show, where they discuss a particular concept with several doctoral physicists with solid reputations in the field discussing different models and theories. It's a television series.

Since it would require an infinite amount of energy to achieve teh speed of light and then presumedly an infinite amount more to exceed it what would happen if you do so doesn't really fit within the realm of the possible.

Now unless you are prepared to discus various hypotheses of time travel and what those mean compared t our discussion (as I stated before the parallel world version of time travel is certainly okay but then you aren't in the same brane anyways, singular-universe forms of time travel have the problem that if you interact with the past you have changed the universe from what it was in some way therby creating a paradox. Incidently examples of time travel when light speed is exceeded (which in not in fact automatice merely possible with different frames of reference intersecting due to the 'no prefered frames' mandate of special relativity: and that one I read from Einstien's own book!)are given as a part of teh explanation of why, beyond simple mathematics it is impossible to exceed the speed of light- in short special relativity is predicated on the basis that time travel (within this universe) is not possible.

You only require infinite energy if what you are accelerating has mass (and of course, we're talking about the macro-scale. Quantum scale operates differently.)



You never ended this sentence.

(And yes, I am. I'm currently reading 'The New Time Travelers - A Journey to the New Frontiers of Physics' by David Toomey. It's very well written. Just make sure, if we're going to discuss this, we do it before it's due back at the library.)

While Einstein did claim traveling back in time is impossible, he did this eighty years ago, and using only a much more limited understanding of physics than we have now. As he said, 'he's earned the right to be wrong'. Hawking did for a while say that time travel was impossible, but it was based on two hypothesis; one which was limited to a single method of travel, the other was basically just 'just because', but he ultimately retracted it.

If we accept the possibility of wormholes, we accept the possibility of traveling back through time.

There seems to be some disagreement as to whether you could travel back in time and create a new universe as opposed to having to travel back in time to an already extant alternate universe, but it is clear that within M theory any time travel will involve alternate universes. It will also be noted from the site above that wormholes are not actually a confirmed phenominon.

(GM Note: Web site sometimes shows inappropriate adverts. Please do not click if you are a minor. The site is just a sci-fi forum discussing M-theory, so the content itself is fine.)

---

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
http://www.sciforums.com/M-theory-t-55468.html

---

This message was last edited by the GM at 17:53, Sun 11 July 2010.

Here's my view on this whole subject, and to summarize I'm afraid I'm going to be a damp rag over this whole thing, as it seems a lot of science fiction to me.

Now I'm not saying that I have very many credentials; I've been reading Geometry for Dummies so far as my expertise in math is concerned, though I have looked over the Wikipedia pages (unreliable as they are, I rather trust them over a film where we're to believe it because the narrator is Morgan Freeman; I learned better than that from watching Expelled for Ben Stein).



I've read about M-Theory and the Various String Theories.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Despite what Morgan Freeman might have been narrating, M-Theory doesn't seem to have anything to do with other Universes, and Membranes refer to mathematical concepts defined by the number of dimensions they cover.

2. The "Alternate Universes" rubbish is based on the assumption that the most basic laws of the Universe could be anything other than what they are.  Given that we have a sample size of precisely 1 at the moment, it can hardly be considered a solid fact proven by any "Theory".  I'm just not seeing where String Theory actually provides this idea (maybe people are taking "dimensions" in a non-geometric sense?)

3. As String-Theory, in any of its forms, has yet to provide falsifiable tests or predictions based on the real world, all that can be said about the mathematics is that they potentially match up with the current evidence we already have.  But as they don't actually provide any tests, they are interchangeable (and thus why there are so many of them).  They can't even really be considered Theories at all at the moment; Conjectures or Theorems would be more appropriate, being mathematical descriptors.

4. Generally in the String Theories and M-Theory time is not considered part of the spatial dimensions, so Freedom of Movement wouldn't seem to be considerable.

5. One does not multiply factors necessarily, and since no tests have yet been provided, there is no way to prove that the extra dimensions are necessary for the model to function, no way to provide exclusivity of one explanation over all others.

What they are describing is one version of M-theory. For instance, people have speculated that there are 7, 10, 11 or 12 dimensions. There are other versions of M-theory (and even more theories about the nature of the universe!)

In the end though, the conclusion seems to be 'well, it's possible, but we really have no idea' either way. Which brings me back to my original problem with the argument - that it assumes a particular nature of the universe which, currently, is purely theoretical and even in some details, to quote Tycho, speculative.

PM
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:24, Sun 11 July 2010.

PM

(For all non-GMs, the PMs are just discussing questionable advert on the link. Don't think we're picking on silveroak or anything.)

(OOC: I have an answer, and thought I'd share it with all, for future reference.

Shannara said thus:


So, when posting a link which may have questionable, but not R-rated content, including naughty adverts, simply label it clearly as such and perhaps put it in spoiler tags. I've gone ahead and done that for silveroak's link, since some of the adverts were... inappropriate (funny thing, on a sci-fi forum but you know, whatever.)

M-theory has 11 dimentions (various forms of string theory had 10, they were unified into M theory with 11), the idea of multiple universe actually comes from an alternative explanation to the orrigins of the cosmos to the big bang in which a collision between universes initiated a 'holographic ripple' in the brane described by M theory for our universe. Like everyone has agreed thus far it is entirely hypothetical and untested with teh tests which can support or crush it scheduled for 2012 and 2014. *however* the fact remains that it is a mathematically sound theory which takes into account all existing data, which differs tremendously from 'whatever wild hair rubber science model we want to pull from a Star Trek episode' and it does have some very concrete limits as to what is or is not possible if it turns out to be correct.

Mathematical Soundness, however, isn't in itself evidence that such is the case.  The major difference between Maths and Sciences is that one deals in Proofs and the other Evidences.

There are mathematical models that are able to add conjectural variables while still remaining an accurate model of the evident world.  However, this is only proof of its own self-consistency, and not evidence of the variable's actual existence.

Sound proofs of how Exotic Matter such as a Tachyon (matter lacking mass) would interact with existing forces or even other Exotic Matter, exist.  Yet it not made evident that Tachyons exist, despite knowing how they might interact with reality if they did.

These proofs are certainly a way of finding out the proper test to perform (Large Hadron Collider noted).



And I hope I'm agreeing with you when I say that if any outcome of the experiments match the models, then Math did its job; we may not know if triangles exist on Alpha Centauri Prime, but if they do we know exactly how they're shaped.

Really there are three 'levels' of model-
conjecture 'it's matehmatically sound'
hypothesis 'it's mathematically sound and fits all available data which is not insignifigant'
theory 'mathematically solid, fits all available data which is not insignifigant and some fo which was predicted by teh model before the data was collected'

There is never prof that any given model is correct, in fact it is a given that there will be flaws. The goal of science is to arrive at models which acurately predict outcomes, Truth is for religion. However science does get itself into a bit of a snit when two wildly divergent theories seem to be equally valid models. tehre are some general guidelines for which one to follow (simplest model is most usefull, no needlessly multiplying entities, etc.) but when those are also either equal or at least apparently so (Niether M theory based orrigins nor the Big Bang theory could be considered a simple model by any strech of the imagination as they currently stand) then they start pouring over the model for differences in prediction that have yet to be uncovered.

Though personally I think they have the expiriments backwards, since in 2014 they plan to look for gravity waves with a satelite in investigating the cosmology for evidence of which orrigin did occur while in 2012 they are using teh large Hadron collider to try and replicate events in the extreemly young universe. That seems to me  abit like deciding to clone the dinosaur before investigating the fosilized tracks to see if it was a herbivoire or a carnivoire...

Umm, actually mathematical models do use proof, and go by the following levels:

1. Statement - A proposition that is either true or false, and nothing else; also known as Truthbearers.

2. Conjecture - A statement that is unproven but appears correct and has not been disproven.

3. Theorem - A statement which has been proven on the basis of previously established statements.

4. Axiom - A proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other truths.

The String "Theories", are Mathematical Models, and as such rely on proofs, not evidence.

String theories are scientific theories, and are being discussed in that context.

Since they have not as of yet been tested Scientifically/Emperically, only proven Mathematically, you cannot really call them scientific theories.

They are Mathematical Models formed with Mathematical Proofs that may or may not be evident and are as of yet untested.

In the scientific context, String Theory is as much a theory as Intelligent Design Theory.  Neither meets the qualifications.  To differentiate between them absolutely requires you to speak in Mathematical contexts.
--------------------

Additionally, Msg #36, posted by you, seems to conflict with your statement that things are being discussed in a scientific context rather than a mathematical context, since despite being incorrect about the matters you refer to 'levels' in a mathematic context, not a scientific one.

In the scientific context, String Theories are speculation, currently lacking any hypotheses that have been tested.

Not trying to make an argument ad-nauseum, but I thought I'd just reiterate my point; if you're speaking about them as if they were already proven, you can only be speaking in a Mathematical context.

Theories in a scientific context are not proven, they have merely 'stood the test of time' and weight of evidence. M-theory is decades old and as it stands complies with all available evidence, and furthermore is refered to in teh scientific community at large as a theory. I do not personally decide the dividing line between tehory and hypothesis in science, but as it is continually refered to as a theory and has been for over a decade, I will refr to it as such, though I am cognizant that some will choose to disagree at this point in time. I have never claimed that it has been proven, nor is it the only theory which fits teh evidence in question, and yes it is still a speculation. However since this entire thread began with that specualtion as it's founding principle I felt it was necessary to maintain the limits of the model in question.

Which is why String/M-theory are not theories.



You seem to be under the impression that "standing the test of time" is just being a really old idea.  If it hadn't been testable those past decades, it wasn't standing any "test of time".

So to summarize, your first point is an argument from age, and the second point is an argument from popularity. Both are fallacious.



Intelligent Design has been continually referred to as a theory, doesn't make it so.  And just because you choose to call it a Theory doesn't make a difference on whether or not you can discuss it in a scientific context; all it does is add "Theory" to the proper name.

I.E. Calling something a God doesn't make it a God, nor does calling it a God while referring to whether or not it likes pudding or pie doesn't make the conversation have a theological context.



It has been proven.  The problem is they've all been proven, and they all disagree with eachother, and there's no evidence or test to make things go one way or the other.  That's why they're Mathematical, not Scientific, models.



That's what I'm saying; and the limits are that these models are Mathematically proven, not Scientifically evident.  Theorems, not Theories.

http://science.discovery.com/v...awking-m-theory.html

Science chanel documentry, in which *Phsyicists* are describing M theory as a promising *scientific* theory.

Good enough for me, I don't know what your criteria is, but this is being described *by leading physicists* as a *scientific* theory in *physics*. Which is not something you can say for creationist models.

I love this book :) Apparently I'm not the first person to think of this. There are some scientist Edward Harrison was addressing the question as to how we had the tremendously good luck of a universe existing with exactly the right physical characteristics necessary to support life (since the odds of that are something like 1 in 10^220). Harrison suggested simply that universes can be both naturally and artifically created, and noted what was already accepted, that a created universe will largely accept the characteristics of the parent universe (in cases where there is a child-parent relationship). Some of those universes capable of supporting intelligent life will support creatures intelligent enough to create child universes - which will have the same life-supporting characteristics, spawn new life, and so on.

In this case, not counting the First Cause problem, the probability of life-supporting universes becomes quite manageable - in fact, they become the baseline, rather than the abberation. By Harrison's hypothesis, the universe having an intelligent creator isn't just possible, it's extremely likely.

The downside is that this hypothesis doesn't comment on whether travel from parent to child is possible, so it could truly be the absent watchmaker scenario.

I've always had a problem when people said things along the lines of "the probability of our universe existing in just such a way as to..." because their estimates of the probability are pure speculation.  In order to put any kind of number on it, even just a ball park figure, we'd have to know something about all the possible ways a universe could be created (I mean all the possible configurations, not all possible methods), and I don't think anyone has any idea about that.  Could there be a universe with a different gravitational constant?  I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does either.  If there could be, are all values of the constant equally likely, or are some more likely than others?  Again, I don't think anyone had any idea on that.  All the statements about the probability of a universe such as are seem to be based on an assumption that a certain number of physical constants are just randomly selected out of a hat when the universe starts, and I don't think there's any reason to think that is or must be the case.

As for the cascade of universes idea, I think there are a lot of questionable assumptions (not necessarily wrong, just that we have no idea whether they're right or not) involved with the argument.  It's possible, but it's also possible that it's completely off, and I don't think we, at present, have any way of determining which is the case.  Nothing wrong with speculation and thought experiments (in fact, there's a lot good about them), but it's important to keep in mind that that is what they are.

This fellow was studying the bonds of carbon atoms, and looking specifically at the number of different possible configurations, and which ones would permit the carbon chemistry necessary for life.

To a degree, you can guess if these other things could exist. For example, if the gravitation constant were lower, you wouldn't have stars and planets form. If it were higher, stars would collapse and wouldn't create the constant stream of nuclear energy required for life.

It seems that quite a few cosmologists agree that, without knowing a particular cause for the universe, the odds of the complex chemical interchanges that we categorize as life being possible is, statistically, miniscule.

But again, unless we have some idea of how many other ways it could be, it's pure speculation.  Yes, there are plenty of constants, laws, etc., that if different would make life (at least as we know it) impossible in our universe.  But is it even possible for them to have been different?  Could the strong force have been stronger?  Could gravity have been weaker?  Are the constants just randomly selected at the start of the universe from any possible number?  Or are they related in someway that we don't understand that limits the possible "choices"?  Or something else altogether?  I don't think anyone has any real evidence for any of these at this point.  Which doesn't mean it's not worth thinking and speculating about, but I think it's important to keep in mind what we don't know when we're making such statements.

There was an episode of the family guy I remember seeing commercials for a long time ago, in which the guy said to his dog "My alphabits are sending me a message!  They say 'oooooooo'!"  To which the dog replied "those are cheerios."  I think there's a parallel here to the universe thing here.  Yes, if you're eating alphabits cereal, the odds of getting a bowl full of just O's is next to astronomical.  But if we're eating cheerios, it's pretty much guaranteed.  I feel like people making statements about the likelihood of our particular universe are assuming we've got a really unlikely bowl of alphabits, without considering the possibility that we've actually got a pretty standard bowl of cheerios.

Another way of putting is is that a sample of 1 universes gives us pretty much no information about the statistical likelihood of that universe (except that it's non-zero).  It's overstepping, in my opinion, for anyone to make any kind of claims about the probability of our particular universe, since we simply don't have enough information to say anything beyond "the probability is non-zero."

It's a bit like someone saying "we rolled ten thousand dice, and they all came up with numbers between 1 and 6", and someone else saying "Ten thousand dice, and not a single 20?!  That's so incredibly unlikely, something must be going on!" without actually knowing if they were rolling d6s or d20s (or something else).  Yes, if you rolled ten thousand d20s and they all came up 6 or lower, that would be incredibly unlikely.  But it's guaranteed if you roll ten thousand d6s (or d4s for that matter).  If all you see is the numbers rolled (not the actual dice), and you assume the dice were d20s, you'll reach some conclusions that won't square with the reality that they were actually d6s.  To make meaningful statements about the likelihood of the given roll you need extra information about the dice, or more generally, about what types of rolls are possible.  For the case of our universe, I don't think we have that kind of information, and I think many people (some cosmologists included) are a bit careless in making those kinds of statements without sufficient knowledge to base them on.

On the other hand we don't know how many universes there are either. To put this in the frame of reference of evolution (which we have a lot more information about) people frequently talk about how improbable human evolution is, but an alternative is that there could be senteint descendants from wombats sitting arround talking about how improbable *their* existance is. Or of course for millions of years there were dinosaurs who didn't debate their existance and relative probability at all. The fact we exist in a low probability situation proves nothing if measured solely against a large number of more or less equally improbable outcomes.

In response to Tycho's statement - we probably can't get an exact number, obviously. But I don't see anything intrinsic to the conditions necessary for life that would seem to make those conditions intrinsic to the creation of a universe. There's no reason a universe must have concentrated energy or mass, or be anything but hydrogen. Even if we eliminate things which would make the creation of the universe impossible, say an overly strong gravitational pull, I simply cannot imagine that the conditions necessary for life get more than even a 1% probability. And if it did, then the question is, what are the odds of universe creation being so closely linked to the conditions of life? And you're back where you started, with questioning odds which are hugely unlikely.

Simply said, if you were to randomly create a universe, even without any knowledge of what defines the laws of that universe, expecting it to be able to harbor life would be hugely unlikely.


Silveroak's point of course is very strong. Let's say yes, there's a 1 out of 10^220 chance of life existing. But if you have 10^600 universes, most likely you will have life in at least one of them. But this is still post hoc ad hoc logic, and nothing about it invalidates the question. If the answer is, there are infinite universes, then that is the answer (although that then begs the question - infinite universes implies infinite different sets of laws, which would seem to imply that SOMEONE somewhere has figured out how to create and jump between universes - feeding back to the original conclusion of the thread).

actually the othe rpoint is that even if life is incredibly improbable, it exists. Maybe there was an equal chance of a universe that was completely hydrogen (actually there may have been a universe that was completely hydrogen for a while) then we got lucky, but the hydrogen universe simply wouldn't question it's existance.
There is also some possibility that over *very* long periods of time many of the 'constants' we observe in the universe may not be so constant, in which case life and intelligence may be a question of *when* the numbers line up rather than *whether*.

No, nor do I.  But to assume that therefor everything is completely random, with any possible number being equally likely for any constant is a very large leap.  You're taking a lack of information, and trying to use it as positive information about likelihood.


Isn't there?  Do you know that?  I certainly don't.  It's possible, but I have no idea of the probability of it being true.  Again, you're going from "I don't know of any reason why X should be true" to "therefor we should assume X is false" which is a big leap.


I think that's a failure of imagination then. ;)  I think you're stuck in the mindset that physical laws and constants are randomly selected from a large set of possible values, when we have no evidence that that is the case (and also no evidence that it's not, unless you count the existence of this universe).  Remember, we're going off a sample size of one here.  To look at one single event, and to assume that's its an astronomically unlikely outlier seems very dubious to me.  Think of it this way:  A friend hands you a bag full of tiles, and tells you to draw on at random.  You do so, and pull out a tile with the number 7 on it.  Do you think "A whole number?!  No way!  What are the odds, that out of all the numbers in the universe, I'd get a whole number?!  Pretty much nothing, really!"  Yes, if your friend had a bag full of real numbers, and you happened to pick a whole number, that'd be incredibly unlikely.  But without seeing any other tiles, does it make sense to assume that the bag is full of real numbers, rather than just whole numbers?  Likewise, if this universe is the only one we know anything about, does it make sense to assume that it was randomly picked out of a vast set of which it was a very non-representative member?


Again, you're assuming a degree of randomness for which we have no evidence (for or against).  Your conclusion (that our universe is incredibly unlikely) is entirely a result of your assumption (that universes are created with completely random parameters, of which the vast majority don't support life), but you have no evidence for that assumption.


Really?  Do you know enough about creating universes to really make that claim?  I certainly don't, and I'd wager pretty heavily that no one else around here does either.  We don't know what is involved with creating a universe.  We don't know what ranges of values are possible to randomly select.  It may be that there's just not that many ways to make a universe.  It may be that selecting one variable determines all the others at the same time.  We simply don't know enough (because we basically don't know anything) about the rules governing the creation of universes to make any kinds of claims about the probabilities of any given universe.

Again, I want to stress that I'm not saying you're wrong, just that what you're saying is based entirely on an assumption that we have no knowledge of.

Define universe, give 3 examples.

Depending on how we define our terminology the laws of physics as we are used to them may not be necessary for life. Take the World of Warcraft, in this virtual universe there is life, though not as we know it puts Star Trek to shame in this case. Now you could argue that the World of Warcraft isn't a 'real' universe. Why? Because we created it on a computer? Why would we assume that anyone who created our universe (if it was created) would see our universe as any more real than we see WoW?

Those who believe in God will probably believe that you cannot prove the existence of God in this lifetime.  If you could, one of the primary purposes of this life (the finding and exercising of faith) would become irrelevant, thwarting the purposes of God.  And since God can't be thwarted, he cannot be proven to exist in this lifetime (at least not through any objective test).

Heath, you might notice that the model of God being proposed as proven for this exercise departs radically from teh judeo-christian one. In fact it pretty well isolates the 'creator' component from any spiritual signifigance and attempts to prove by calculation that there is a logical inescapability to the existance of an entity which creates universes. Hopelessly flawed in some ways, though if e use WoW as a valid universe completely proven in others...

The Book of Mormon gives a proof for God -- it says to follow the scientific method, basically.

1. Form a question.  Does God exist?
2. Do background research (with an open mind).  Read the Book of Mormon.
3. Form a hypothesis.  God exists.
4. Test with an experiment.  Ask God whether or not he exists (pray).
5. Analyze results and draw a conclusion.

I ssy that God is real.  He has answered my prayers.  Add my testimony to that of many others who say that they know, one way or another, that God is real, that he does exist.  Consider this as part of step two, background research.

So if you did prove the existence of God, would it therefore disprove the existence of God?

(For the record, 'those' does not apply to 'all'. While I think proving God is highly unlikely, I don't think it's impossible.)

Unfortunately, that's a horrible test, and it's pretty nonacademic to suggest using it.

In the end, it's a lot like Intelligent Design; it's trying to pass itself off as scientific, but it really isn't.



This is not a scientific question; you haven't defined the terms being used.  What is a God, and what qualifies as existing?



Background research refers to accessing the collection of previously published and unpublished information about a site, region, or particular topic of interest and it is the first step of all good archaeological investigations, as well as that of all writers of any kind of research paper.

This usually requires reading more than a single book, and it does not mean doing it with an open mind.



This is a bad scientific test, for two reasons:

1. There are too many unknown variables.
2. There are too many axioms assumed without having tested them.
3. You are using a test sample of one.

Because of this, the significance of any result is absolutely meaningless; the resulting confidence interval is very low.



I performed the exact same test that you did.  There was no answer.  By your own test, the sample size of two shows your results to be inconclusive.



That would be very bad and unscientific background research.  Testimony like this is bad evidence for the same reason the above test is poorly performed; its results are not demonstrable.

You have to believe the results of others, you can't simply see for yourself.

If I tell you I put iron in chlorine, and the iron caught fire and dissolved, not only can I repeat the experiment and have you witness my results every single time I do it, but you can also do the same experiment alone and always get the same results, whether or not you believe me beforehand.

Thus, the result of drawing a conclusion from the above tests, and the nature of the research that led up to it, leads one to the conclusion that the researcher is acting on a biased presumption, and was merely looking for something to reaffirm the conclusion they've already made.
--------

personal testimony is at best anecdotal evidence, which is only useful for inspiring a question, not answering it conclusively.

The Book of Mormon occasionally gives a personal testimony for the Mormon God, though usually only if you're a christian in the first place.

Let me read to you from my BOM ;)

Bart, If I ask teh flying Spaghetti Monster if he exists, and get back a positive result, does that mean the flying spaghetti monster exsts, or that I should be locked away in a rubber room with a straitjacket (okay, honestly that would be a bit extreeme, but it illustrates the point).
There is a difference between objective evidence and subjective evidence.
Now if every time I pray to teh flying spaghetti monster I enter a clean room with clean clothes and no food and walk out with tomato sauce stains on my knees, *that* is evidence. Even if you don't get the same result by praying to the flying spagheti monster it is something measurable and quantifiable. It wouldn't be scientifically proven (not being repeatable by everyone) but it would be real evidence.

Sure.  I wouldn't argue with your beliefs in that manner, any more than I argue with Catholics or Jews about their beliefs.  I happen to think they're kind of wrong, but more power to them, they're living good lives. :)

What you're asking is for someone else to prove to you that God exists, not how you can ascertain that for yourself.  I'm sort of reminded of the dwarves in the final Chronicles of Narnia book -- I've seen that sort of behavior a lot over the past couple decades. ;)

I maintain and testify that God does exist and that if you really go ask him, he'll make that known to you.

No Bart, I am defining teh defirence between objectiv evidence and subjective experience. Your belief in a God does not constitute evidence of his existance. It is your belief, and that is that. I personally believe in many Gods and Goddesses, but I also know the difference between evidence and personal subjective experience.

I have also tried the Mormon "Read the book and pray" experiment.  Didn't get an answer, and then got insulted by Mormons for saying so.  Add my testimony to those who say the proposed test doesn't work as advertised. ;)

Bump!

Statistical probability, it’s where you configure the possible variations within something and then produce the possible outcomes.  The more complex any one thing, the more elements that are responsible for leading to its outcomes, increases the probability that something could go wrong and lead to it’s not happening.  You see this in a smaller scale in genetics and medicine on a day to day basis.  Anyone that has taken enough Stats classes gets into eventually, there is an entire class of Regression equations built around and it is relatively accurate.

See Renelds, P. and Walker, T, (2002), Probability in Statistics, Liberty Press, New York.

And this is why as both a Christian and a practicing scientist, God doesn’t belong in science; as faith is an inherent quality of any religious system.  Faith is something by it’s vary nature cannot be directly measured, elements related to it can, but faith as a construct cannot be measured directly (Fisher, 1996).

At the same time Science cannot and should not make any claims to whether he/ she, or multiple versions of, do not exist either.  String theory and her difference of a mathematical theory and a scientific theory came up, cannot prove or disprove it either.  Physicists realize on a basic level that a mathematical model, and related theory, is not the same as a scientific theory (e.g. Mathew, 1989).  As a related note, String Theory hasn’t overcome the entropy problem yet, an important hurtles for the theory to remain, it has also shown to have algebraic inconsistencies (see Paterson, 2005, for a review).

The problem with a statistical 'proof' of inteligent design is that it makes the a priori assumption of it's own arument. Sure the probability of our existince is infinitescemal. But had we not climbed our way out of the muck there might well be sentient descendants of wallabies sitting arround discussing how improbable their existance is. On that kind of scale all otcomes are improbable.
On the other hand the universe has a *lot* of stars which means it's rolling a lot of dice so to speak. The odds of *something* popping up... well lets just say they are better than the odds of only one thing popping up...

Well yes and no, the odds of us being the only life in the universe aren’t exactly small, but lets think about just a few factors in determining the facets, that science is pretty sure are necessary for carbon based life.  Yes, I know we’ve found silicon based life form, well partially so, living near volcanoes, X-files did an episode on how they are supposed to be so dangerous to mankind.

First, distance from a star, can’t be two close, or too far; kneads to have the right gravitational tug between itself and all the other planets, as it plays a role in atmosphere creation, kneads the right mix of gas based elements to create some sort of atmosphere, needs the right sis, and distanced moons to exert wind flow and help facilitate water movement; etc, etc, etc.  I just scratched the surface, no, I haven’t really, I really haven’t scratched the surface, I’ve just mentioned a handful of issues.   And not to sound like a complete and utter ass, life on other planets doesn’t mean that it is necessary intelligent life, as there’s a whole set of other issues.  You see simply having a lot so something doesn’t necessitate that one will have the qualitative changes that one wants.

In reply to katisara (msg #61):

Thanks for the bump Kat.  Lots of interesting stuff here.

But I would like to ask, to a scientist, why does the presence or absence of God matter?  Does it change the theory or nature of what you are studying?  A scientist is concerned with the scientific method and God's existence does not have an impact on that.

Now I would like to ask, to the faithful, how does the presence of science and the scientific method affect your faith?  Does the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun disprove the existence of God or did it prove the ignorance of the Vactican's official position?

Because, all things considered, I find it worthless for scientists to say there is no God just as I find it worthless for the faithful to try to influence science with religion.  Science is science and faith is faith.  The boundaries are quite clear to me.  I don't like religion, or ideology, interfering with the workings of science and I don't like when Atheists dismiss the faithful as morons or children.  Having met brilliant religious scientists I know there is room in one mind for both to exist much less room on one planet.

Just my observation.

We have already established one extra solar planet which definitely has water (100 LY disatnt, large terrestial planet) and several others which are the right distance from their star (the closest being 6 LY away, with 2 planets orbiting within te habitable zone!) so that they may have liquid water. that is pretty much the prime indicator of the possibility of life, to the ebst of our knowledge. All of that is within 10 LY of earth and the universe is billions of LY in any given direction.

In most cases it doesn't. But if you are studying say cosmology, the existence of a God speaks volumes regarding the expected presence of other universes, other life in our universe, the nature of time and so on. Similarly, the idea of a soul is a serious issue for psychology and biology (especially neurology). Basically, if you could prove the existence of God, it would tell you to look for particular features, and to avoid others. It changes what you're going to hypothesize.

The actual nature of how you test the hypothesis should not be changed, but obviously, scientists regularly struggle to avoid biasing results.

Overall though you're right. Science is about models, not necessarily the actual 'how it happened'. Atoms may be held together by tiny spirits, but science should still use the Bohr model because the math is easier.



The Vatican's official position was based on the best science available to them - that of the Greeks and Romans. So it does show that religious organizations should be cautious what they put their stamp on, otherwise what is fundamentally a secular debate may be miscast as an ecclesiastical matter.

However, more broadly, it does present a serious concern. Religion forms and explains our experience of the universe. If I believe we are ultimately judged for actions we have taken through the use of free will, and psychologists objectively prove free will is an illusion, that has huge philosophical and religious consequences. However, most scientific debates really have no impact on religious faith unless religious texts are misapplied. The Bible was not written to be a science book, and applying it as such is as wrong as using the physics textbook as a guide to proper behavior.



I agree strongly with this, and I feel like people like Dawkins have done a lot of damage to the ability of people to get along civilly.

I asked that this thread be bumped so I could show you guys something that has been running through my mind for years.

The commonly accepted traits of the Jewish/Cristian/Muslim God are as follows:

Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omni-Benevolent.

Go to your favorite news outlet, read ten random stories. You will instantly see that there is suffering and hardship in the world. By this fact it seems inevitable that you will see that God Can Not have all of these characteristics.

However since it is clearly not the case that everyone can see that let me enumerate how this breaks down. Here are the options as I see them...

1: God is not Omnipotent. Ka is all knowing, everywhere, and loves everyone unconditionally, but does not have the power to end suffering in the world. Under this option worshiping Kae is still good because abiding by Ka's doctrine makes the world better. (Also this calls into question huge swaths of genesis and things but that is a whole different discussion.)

2: God is neither omniscient or omnipresent. Ka is both Omnipotent and Omni-Benevolent but does not know that we suffer and therefore has not stopped it. This one is more questionable, if Ka is truly omnipotent why has Ka not made Kaeself aware of all that transpires in the universe and then stopped suffering? Is Ka willfully ignorant and thus not Omni-Benevolent, or not able to handle knowing all things and thus not truly Omnipotent? It may still be good to worship God in this case for the same reasons as above. (As long as you live by Ka's doctrine.)

3: God is not Omni-Benevolent. And Ka is the biggest jerk in the whole universe. Under this situation I can only assume that God derives some kind of sick amusement from our suffering. If this is the case then to worship Kae is not good or just, it is obeying the most evil person in existence, by comparison to whom all others seem tame, because without Ka's tacit approval they could not have done as they did.

4: Several of the above together. As an example; God is neither Omnipotent, nor omnipresent, nor omniscient, but is Omni-Benevolent and is doing what he can to help us through his clergy and prophets, when they obey his instructions. (This is the one that I personally feel is most likely.)

5: God as envisioned by the monotheistic religions does not exist. Science is right, religion is wrong, & worshiping God is a waste of time. (Weather or not non-monotheistic religions may still be correct is outside the bounds of this discussion.)

(Footnote, I have used the words Ka and Kae in this article to refer to God in the third person, these are words of my mother's invention that cover the lack of gender neutral third person pronouns in English. I use them because if God is omnipotent or omnipresent God transcends genders and to call Kae by ether gender is inappropriate. Note that in the case where I considered him nether omnipotent or omnipresent I reverted to the male pronoun.)

The problem your logic assumes is that since you are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, how can you properly judge an omnipotent/omniscient beings actions? How do you know that this hypothetical god is not, in actuality, playing a long term game and that the universe as it currently exists is actually the best possible one for all the people in it and their eventual afterlives?

The Ka/Kae thing is a little distracting, and I think detracts something from your argument... But in general it seems like you're saying 'If God wants to help us, knows we're suffering, and has the ability to help, why isn't He?'

Like Falkus said, you are making assumptions, mostly that our current, temporal suffering is of any significant consequence in the long term. I care about my children very much, and have the ability to protect them (to a degree), but I still take them into the doctor to get shots, I still require they go to school, and I task them with challenging, painful experiences. I don't think anyone says that, because I do this, I am not knowledgeable, sufficient powerful, or emotionally invested enough as a parent.

Yes, I have thought of that, and thank you.

   What it comes back to is this: If God is truly omnipotent, all powerful then Ka can create the universe or alter it in such a way that suffering not only does not happen, but has never happened, and is totally superfluous to any of the universes other functions with no side effects what so ever. Weather or not it has no long term consequences is immaterial, it has them right now, and an omnibenevolent being would not want anyone or anything to suffer for even an instant if it was within their power to prevent it.
   What you are both arguing is the first instance, God is not truly omnipotent, Ka is doing what is best for us but Ka cannot stop us from suffering, or if Ka can then there is some consequence even more dire.

Unless you define lack of free will as suffering.

No, I don't think so. ALL powerful, can do anything even things you and I cannot properly imagine, like free will without suffering.

Why?  Why does God enter the equations that theorize other universes, other life on other planets, or the nature of time?  All of these are scientific constructs that require no belief in God.  They work perfectly fine without a "God element".



Scientists are humans and humans possess bias.  That is why science doesn't rely on the word of a single person but relies on observation that is repeatable and falsifiable.  The features of your "soul" can and will be questioned as will your hypothesis.  That is as it should be.

Although I don't find too much "serious" research into the soul in biology or psychology.  Like all human endevors, there is a lot of crap.  One can even question the validity of a scientific quest to find the "soul".  As you say it would have to rely on looking for those "particular features".



You reminded me of this:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/3529...ve-theodoric-of-york

Always funny.



Agreed.



You have used scientists finding a "soul" and now you have them objectively proving that "free will" is an illusion.  This is not a current problem as far as I know and I dare say that it won't be anytime soon.  When those two things happen I will cross that wobbly bridge when I get to it.

But you are right that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, although some would like to claim it is.  Nor should a person look to physics for morality.



Agreed.  The Dawkins, Hitchens, and Mahr's of the world attack religion with such... zealotry.  I was banned from an certain Atheist forum because the moderators got complaints that I was a "closet Theist" for disagreeing with the more rabid members of the forum that Theists (to use their terms: morons, religiots, or, my fav, Christards) should not have their children taken away nor should teaching religion be akin to child abuse.

If one is going to rail against religious fundamentalism then one should not adopt the mindset and attitude that is employed by the worst of that element.

Because believing in a God limits options. If you believe in God, you may therefore belief life elsewhere is more likely, or other universes is more possible.



There's not too much serious research into it because most scientists, at least professionally, aren't tied to such a thing existing. If we all agreed a soul MUST exist, because God came down and told us, then clearly our research is more likely to look for it, and will be quicker to ascribe biological features to it.

To a degree, I think there will always be a grappling between the two. Religion starts from philosophy and enters into the unknown. Science starts from proven facts and math, and enters into 'what could be'. Naturally, as people look to answers, the two will always be on a see-saw. I don't think the two are opposed, but I think it's easy to mix up one with the other, and when the truth is revealed, people get defensive.

I guess part of it comes down to, as it always does, 'people!'

I must be missing something because I don't see the factor that you seem to think is automatically imposed by faith.  Some people of faith, like one of my friends, are Creationists.  The word in the Bible is how it happened.  He doesn't believe in other life on other planets nor other universes.  Another of my friends, another Christian, believes that there are many universes and many different planets with life on them.  For one, the Bible is the final words.  For the other, God's mind is unknowable and he gave us science and logic in order to figure out the way his universe works.

It depends on how you view God but physics cares not what your beliefs are and isn't limited by the mere beliefs of one physicist.  Within a scientific discipline you have to look at the enitre discipline, not the individual.  A single individual can be right but his theories and results must be pass the gauntlet of other scientists.



"If we all agreed..." that is a pretty big if and even if that were possible I still doubt that you could give a physical layout of a soul.  It would be interesting if you could and then found out that some people lack the physical qualities of a soul.  I would say most IT people would fit into that category.



Yes.  I always flinch when a scientist makes a statement about God based on a formula or physical theory.  It really isn't warranted and should be prefaced by "my personal belief is...".  That only serves to rile up the religious.



Indeed.  We are surrounded by the little devils.

You're asking about specifics, which will vary from religion to religion. The LDS Church believes God originated 'somewhere else', so there must be 'somewhere else' for God to have come from. Most religious people believe they will ultimately be judged by their actions, and they were given free will. So we operate on the assumption of free will.

Some people have more expansive beliefs than others. You dismissed the question of free will, but almost always religion will focus on the 'facts' which are currently unknown - any religion which relies on facts which are provably false is not going to be successful in the long run. So dismissing that example is a little unfair.

I am sorry if I came off dismissive but religion can be easily dismissed, even by many people of faith, when it comes to scientific works.  That Mormon might have faith that God came from "somewhere else" but that doesn't mean that it has to be another planet or another universe.  God, if God be God, may come from a place undreamed of beyond the mere scientific forumlae of Man.  If that Mormon proved that alternate universes could not exist and that we are alone in the universe how does that have any effect on his faith?

Were talking about God after all.  The Mormom would conclude, if truly a believer, that God's original domain is outside his understanding.

Religion is free to focus on the "facts" but these are not scientific facts.  Anyone who is in science to find out God's address is probably not doing the best science they can do.  They are trying to fit religion into science and that is exactly what I am saying cannot, and should not, be done.  If your religion is getting in the way of objective science one would hope it would be noted by other scientists.

As for religion being successful based on facts: I would have to disagree heartily.  Is Noah's Ark a fact?  Is Arjuna's conversation with Lord Krishna a fact?  Is the Summer Court handing over the world to the Winter Court a fact?  Is Mohammad's ascension into Heaven a fact?  Is Jesus'?  I would say that those beliefs rely on faith and faith alone.  Science can't disprove that Jesus wasn't the Son of God nor that Mohammed was not Allah's Prophet.  How could science do so in a scientific manner that was repeatable and falsifiable?

Once again, forgive me if I am coming across as dismissive but I believe I am quite clear that religion and science do not mix nor do they need to.  The concept of free will has not been disproven nor do I believe that anyone is coming to close to "proving" it.  I don't really know why that is unfair.

The operative word there being 'might'. Regardless as to which he chooses though, there is a hard conflict of beliefs, which he must resolve.



Everything is based on facts, even if the facts are as minor as 'I think'. Most religions are based on the fact of free will, the fact of death, the fact of consciousness. Specific ones are oftentimes based on more specific facts. Are some aspects of religions mythological? Of course. But some are almost always literal. Otherwise it isn't a religion, it's a mythology. No one has faith in the figurative.



Ideally. But our work in science is based on our understanding of the universe, and our understanding is shaped based on our beliefs. Newtonian physics should not have caused the amount of trouble for astrophysicists as it did, but there you have it - it did, until one man's world view was unconventional enough to break out of that. If science can hold science back, by creating dogmas we can't break free of, why shouldn't religion?



Actually, there are studies which suggest free will does not exist. Specifically, neurological mapping shows that we most often 'decide' something before we consciously register it, then the conscious mind serves primarily to rationalize it. While this isn't proof, it's highly suggestive. But that's neither here nor there. The point is, you're going to have a hard time finding a religion which pushes a literal belief which can be experimentally disproven by science. So you're not going to find a fact which we can prove today which a religion disagrees with, because if someone says "I believe X" and then I can set up an experiment which clearly proves that wrong, that belief is going to lose followers. (Evolution is clearly the fringe case, because it can't be experimentally proven, even if it can be tested by more arcane methods. It is also still a very transitional issue, which I think ultimately will favor the scientific view.) So if you can't take proven fact A and religion which believes ~A, you have to discuss what will happen, what may be discovered, and discuss that.

Well, how do you know it could be better? You're not omniscient or omnipotent. Again, who are we to judge the actions of being infinitely superior to us?

To paraphrase Scott Adams: "If the world's smartest man decides to work as a garbageman; who are we to judge that decision? We're all stupider than he is."

In reply to Falkus (msg #81):

   Because the definitions of that are very specific. Omni-Potent: ALL powerful, can do absolutely anything. Things we cannot even frame in any way in our limited world view, like you literally cannot think of it at all, but the God you believe in can do it just because Ka feels like it this morning.

   If that is not what God is capable of, Ka is not Omnipotent, just very powerful. This calls a lot of the other things into question, like since Ka's power is not absolute but relative, are there beings who are more powerful?

   You asked who I am to question God? A human, who by your philosophy God gave free will, which includes the ability to question Kae.

And again: How can someone without omniscience judge a being with it? You are, to put it frank, nowhere near as smart as an omniscient being. How can you judge its actions when it, by the very definition, knows better than you?

And as for my philosophy, I don't believe in god. I'm an agnostic. I just view your arguments as being flawed.

Also, just FYI, we already have a third person gender neutral pronoun in English. It.

This is getting off topic but 'It' is not a third person pronoun, since it only refers to objects and animals.

Anyway, If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and omniscient why does Ka not grant us omniscience so we can know Ka's reasoning? Generally God just says 'do this' and expects us to obey, despite all of the repeated evidence to the contrary. I mean Ka gave us ten basic rules to guide our lives and we cant handle that, then decides that the problem was the instructions weren't complex enough and gives us the new testament. This when Ka supposedly designed us and would know that we can almost always handle simple instructions easier than complex ones. Sometimes it really does make me wonder if option three is the truth.

Actually, God gave us about 300 commandments to run our lives, until the New Testament came along and reduced it to two. However, those two required more thought in order to apply them properly, while the 300 is about as straightforward as programming a (terribly flawed) computer.

However, focusing on the thrust of your argument, I thought of a few answers for you.

1) As Falkus said, the quickest answer is 'insufficient information'. My wife leaves for a day. Is it because she's going to the store? She's running away? She's been in an accident? I don't know, and I can't know until someone with better information sets me straight. However, the absence of information doesn't mean she's running away any more than it means she's going to the store. Your solution, that God doesn't exist, is a valid solution to the problem, but it's not the only one, and so it isn't proven.

2) There's a difference between strong omnipotence and weak omnipotence. What you describe is strong omnipotence. However, the LDS theology seems to describe a God possessing weak omnipotence - God was pre-existed by things like suffering, love, and mathematics. Most other Christian faiths seem to subscribe to strong omnipotence, but I've never seen any scriptural support for the idea. It is possible that God CANNOT make us instantly into better people without the suffering and joys of actually crafting us, or give us the power of free will without also let us choose poorly.

3) You suppose that suffering is contrary to God's goals and somehow evil. God's goals, as described to us, is for us to love Him and strive to be with and understand Him. What if God *IS* suffering, just as God is love? If God created us for the explicit purpose of understanding Him, and He is both love and suffering, then we necessarily are crafted to both love and suffer. Not permitting us to suffer would reduce our utility and violate our purpose. I'm not suggesting that God is a sado-masochist. That implies He derives pleasure from suffering. Rather, God is trying to create understanding, and understanding is born of experience, even painful experiences. So God can stop the suffering, and does feel it with us, but understands that the suffering is itself an end-goal.

4) A little more off the beaten path, you suppose God is a conscious entity like us. I tend more for the 'Catholic-Taoist' route, which accepts that God is not a man with a beard on a cloud, but is the Universe - everything. God is compassionate, because He feels what we feel (being part of us), and God is all-powerful, being the universe. However, God is also strong and rigid, and has steep requirements for us. Like the example above, suffering is part of the end-goal, part of experience, but is not evil. Equating evil to suffering is a human conceit. God lets us live through the process because God *is* the process.

5) God sees our pain, feels it, but realizes it for how minor it is. This is a bit more cold-hearted. To give an example, my son, when he has to empty the dishwasher, carries on, shouts, says he's dying and so on. I could do the same job in a quarter of the time and I don't think it's a hassle. But I let him do it anyway. Yes, I let my son suffer. Part of that is because the scale of the suffering is, really, pretty minor. Similarly, the scale of our suffering may be minor compared to the reality of the Universe. God may be able to help our suffering, and may be suffering with us, but is still thinking "geez, shut up. Stop being such a wus." I think though this argument could be pretty easily defeated.

6) And the existentialist argument. Suffering doesn't really exist. We only have memories of suffering. People we see who are suffering are not actually souls suffering. They are momentarily or permanently soulless. Suffering is an illusion. I'm sure I could play this argument off better if you put me to it. Maybe pull some Buddhist philosophy about there not being a spoon. Otherwise it could be a very dangerous position, since it supposes that we cannot cause others to suffer, only illusions of others.

Sorry for the delay in posting.  Life you know.



Actually, if that Mormon does prove, scientifically, that alternate universes and other life-bearing planets don't exist then that is not a belief.  It is a fact.  What is a belief is his belief in the Mormon God which came from Elsewhere.  I don't know why one would have a conflict unless they thought their Mormon God was an alien or a multi-dimensional being.



I would disagree.  Many a religion is based on myths and stories.  Jesus used stories to teach his lessons and storytelling is a proud tradition amongst many a religion.  Death, life, consciousness, and thought are facts but I don't see anyone really contesting those facts.  It is what occurs around death and life and thought which are subjects of faith.  Where do you go after?  Where were you before?  If you believe in souls, who crafted yours?

So no.  Not everything is based on facts.  A fact that cannot be proven is called faith.



Then idealist I be.  It was not religious belief that held us within the bounds of Newton's Laws.  It was the fact that Newton's Laws worked on so many levels.  Where they did not was where scientists were concerned with until one man's observations combined with his mathematical and physical skills figured out the issues at hand.  It was not his world view but his keen scientific mind and his processes that provided the breakthrough.

You are correct that scientific dogma can hold science back.  Once again, damn humans.  But scientific dogma tends to give way before religious dogma does.



Exactly.



Actually, evolution has been, and can be, experimentally proven.  Evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it. Stephen Jay Gould famously addressed this argument by pointing out that the fact of gravity is that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein's improved theory. The current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things fall. Similarly, Darwin's original theory of evolution was highly incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today's theory is still incomplete but it's a thousand times better than it was in Darwin's day. But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.

And yet we still have Creationists even though Creation, as they see it, has proven scientifically wrong.  Human faith is amazingly resilient against the march of progress and science.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:52, Tue 04 Jan 2011.

Lets put it this way.
If I, as a parent, had even a degree of omniscience that I personally can concieve then my children would never suffer.
they would mature into wise and intelligent adults by the grace of my power without ever suffering from discomfort. They would never have to get used to teh world being a hostile place because it wouldn't be.
When we say we punish our chidlren because we love them it is in the cotext of knowing that there are a lot of things in the world that we cannot always be there to protect them from. And so we believe a small ammount of harm to teach is better than a large ammount of harm that ignorance would bring.
"the best possibel world" is meaningless in the face of omnipotence, which can create worlds we consider impossible.

On the other hand, I will offer a reasoning for how a hypothetical deity could have all of the listed traits and still result in the world we see- lack of understanding.
Consider the old man in the Matrix trilogy, the one who knows everything and understands nothing (by the oracle's description). If God knows, factually, everything there is to know but believes we are happy with the world we have (after all, it is to a large degree the world we made with what, hypothetically, he gave us) then his inaction makes sense.
It is even popssible that this hypothetical deity may be less than trully omni-benevolant but *believes* it is omni-benevolant. And of course acts *mostly* in that fashion, and well who is going to argue with him/her/it?

And FYI "it" refers to a state of being without (defined) gender. It generally isn't used when human gender is unknown however because of teh connotation of someone being without humaity. A deity, however, by definition, is not human to begin with (or if they were human to begin with they aren't for very long comparitively speaking...)

Regardless, it creates a conflict, which must be resolved.



From my discussions with Mormons, that is what they believe, that God came from another place not unlike Earth, lived as a mortal, and transcended to godhood, then came here and created this world. We, in turn, may follow the same path of transcendance and creation.



But it is not based SOLELY on myth, otherwise the religion does not have faith, it's just a philosophy or a mythology. This is why Heath has said several times that Buddhism and Taoism are oftentimes not religions, because many followers don't believe the Buddha literally did what is described. Christianity is a religion, and it believes, as a staple of its faith, that there is literally a God, literally a soul, literally a Jesus and literally a resurrection. If you say "Jesus and the resurrection are just myths", you are no longer a religious Christian.




Belief in an afterlife is based on the fact of death. I challenge you to find any belief which does not have its origination in fact. Even "I have a pink unicorn in my garage" is based off facts - the existence of horses, your garage, you, ownership. The belief enters only in the rearranging those facts into an unprovable configuration.




Evolution is very difficult to prove in an observable manner. It's not like heliocentrism, where you get a picture of the sun and planets, or a picture of stars blurring from our motion. So it will take longer for people to accept that evolution has been 'proven' to them.

However, I still say the Creationists are a dying breed. It will take a few generations, but eventually newer minds will be more amenable to the idea. Instead they'll struggle with the next Big Idea, maybe that our universe is a soap bubble in the quantum fluff or that continuity of what we consider a 'person' can be maintained by maintaining the pattern of information that represents that person.

Are you sure you mean Mormons not Scientologists?

Seems pretty easy considering the unknowable nature of God.



Did God say another planet or an alternate dimension?  Otherwise I don't see how those scientific concepts disprove where God comes from.  I would have to go with Silveroak here and wonder if these are Scientologists.  The Mormons I have known have never spoken of this particular part of their faith.



Many a Christian believes the Word of Jesus but not so much the stories about before his birth or after his death.  They would say they are religious Christians but that is for Christians to fight about.



Really reaching here.  Horese are a fact.  Unicorns are not.  Pink is a color and that is a fact.  That Unicorns are pink is not.  That I have a garage is a fact.  I am hiding a pink unicorn in it is not.  Saying that you are basing a belief in unicorns on the fact that there are horses, the color pink, and garages is NOT basing a belief on fact.



Part of what you need to do to validate a theory is to test it and observe the results. Although there are evolutionary phenomena that can be directly observed like dog breeding and lab experiments with fruit flies, most of what evolution explains has happened over millions of years and so, quite obviously, nobody was around to observe most of it. This is true, but it misstates what observation consists of. There's a lot of observation in science where we have to use evidence of an event: certain chemical reactions, subatomic particle physics, theoretical physics; all of these disciplines involve experimentation and observation where the actual events can't be witnessed. The theory of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence that was observed from the fossil record. So in this respect, every significant aspect of evolution has been exhaustively observed and documented, many times over.



My vacation down to Kentucky showed me that Creationism is alive and well and quite a thriving industry.  The Creationist Museum for example.  Not to mention that when I took a trip to Dinosaur World there was a section in the gift shop for Creationist material.  And boy, is there a lot written about it.

I don't believe Creationism is going anywhere anytime soon.  Humans, as a whole, are slow to adapt beliefs to new techonology and scientific breakthroughs.

Define soon.
Creationism was strong enough that teaching evolution was a major contraversy 100 years ago. Now it is reversed, with the courts ruling not just for the right to teach evolution but banning public schools from teaching creationism. It has gone from arround 95% of the population to arround 20% in the last century. That is a pretty signifigant shift, greater in scope (though of far narrower focus) than the Protestant Reformation. I certainly find it easy to believe that (to use the analogy) that creationism will disappear before Catholicism (despite the fact that the current crisis in the church is the same one - sodomites, that Martin Luther warned about in the 1500's and which the Pope in the 1600's decided to take a stand to eliminate...)

Sorry for not defining "soon" as I was using the term Creationism to encompass all religions.  There is Islamic and Hindu Creationism as well as Christian Creationims and I don't believe we are anywhere near the end of those who do not accept that evolution is a scientific fact.

Nor do I believe the Catholicism is going anywhere soon even with the problems it is currently undergoing.  As above, I am using the world-wide measure of "soon".  Faith is a stubborn thing.

Creationism will still be around a 100 years from now but hopefully more scarce than it is today.

The point of religion is it tells you know SOMETHING, however little, of God. When the two are in conflict well, that's a conflict.



Ask them about the life of God prior to the creation of the universe. Ask if God was ever mortal. You can argue alternate dimensions or planets or whatever. The point of the hypothetical exercise is your religious belief is God came from 'somewhere else', and your scientific discovery shows that there is no life outside of Earth. That is a conflict. Your answer could be 'well science just hasn't found it yet' (which is basically just saying science is wrong, or incomplete), or 'my religion is wrong'.



Please show me a Christian who considers himself a religious Christian, but doesn't believe Jesus was resurrected. I have honestly never heard of this.



I'm not trying to debate with you. I'm trying to convey a point. I'm having some trouble explaining it, so I need some help reaching that point.

My point is, our understanding is based off our experience. We write about unicorns and human gods because we have encountered horses and humans. People in the 10th century didn't imagine intelligent machines, because they had such limited experience with machines. If religion makes up your experience, your scientific focus will be based off of that. If your experience is made up of Newtonian physics, your focus will be based off of THAT. You can't approach science in a vacuum. Science will always be plagued by our pre-concieved notions, be it religion or what-have-you.



I suppose my point is that there's a difference between scientific testing and observation, and practical, layman's observation. Indeed, we haven't seen evolution between clearly different animals across millions of years. Our evidence is rocks found in layers of other rocks and patterns of letters from genome sequencing. You can't show that to Joe Shmoe and say "aha! Proof!" and expect him to understand (or care). Astronomical evidence has been summarized in a few pictures from probes and that pretty much closed that case. Evolution isn't there yet.



I also would be amazed if Creationism outlived the RCC (unless you're saying it may survive like geocentrism survives today, with maybe a few tens of believers in an insulated, generally disdained community on the fringes, or ironically or just for convenience of a quick model, etc.)

A conflict easily dismissed in many cases it seems.



Two things.  Number one is that proving that there are no alternate dimensions or planets does not, in any way, prove that your God didn't come from somewhere else.  Just that the Somewhere Else is unknowable to science.  You know, kinda like God.  Number two is that saying "science just hasn't found it yet" is NOT saying that science is wrong nor is it saying that your religion is wrong.  Not even close.  It means that a scientific explanation of a phenomenon has not been found.



This is mostly the more, shall we say, liberal believers.  The kind that doesn't want to incur the ridicule of their liberal friends while still maintaining a belief in the word of Christ.  The word of Christ means more than the nature of his death and his resurrection.



I don't believe I stated that science occurs in a vacuum.  I stated that science is a process that weeds out those observations that cannot be tested repeatedly or falsified.

We actually agree that humans, who practise science, are biased and approach science with a predetermined hypothesis.  Science is the process of altering your hypothesis to what is actually being observed again and again.  You don't change the facts, you change your thinking.

That being said, I have had the pleasure of meeting a great many in the scientific world who are people of faith.  A great many of them see no conflict between their scientific lives and their faith.  It is my observation that a these men and women do not find the conflict you seem to think would destroy religious faith.



I am not out to convert Creationists or "laymen".  The evidence is there if they wish to see the world as it is.  If they don't care or don't understand then it is not my place to rub their face in it.  I am not a scientific missionary.  If engaged by such people, and I have been, I attempt to educate them and point out where their logic fails them.  Even my Creationist friend, a network engineer, is highly impervious to any explanation no matter how simplified.



If you look at the numbers of Creationists (Islamic, Christian, Hindu, etc) you will see that it is far more widespread than just the American Christians or the RCC.  Even if you had a picture that fully explained evolution it would not be accepted by many of them.

Alright, well... you seem to have an idea that most or all religious scientists will have no issue when science and religious beliefs conflict. I don't think there's anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

In reply to katisara (msg #95):

It is an observation of mine that many in the sciences who proclaim a faith have no issues with the science they are practicing.  None of them are currently dissecting souls or disproving free will or barring the gates back to God's hometown.

What these scientists ARE doing is studying DNA, working on new drugs, doing statistical modelling of animal populations, studying sub-atomic particles, and a myriad of other scientific endevors.  None of them seem shaken in their beliefs in the Almighty no matter what that Almighty is to them.

You pointed it out eariler that scientific dogma holds back science sometimes.  I would say that it is far more likely for a scientist to have conflicts over letting go of a pet theory, or one that funds their research, and revising their theory based on new evidence.

Non-scientists often have an issue with scientific discoveries because people who don't understand the science of it make it into what it is not: the questioning of religion.

Most of the scientists I work with similarly have no issues. However, most of them, like the ones you listed, aren't working with anything that tests that faith. I don't see a lot of computer scientists complaining about the theological implications of their work :) If you want to approach this fairly, focus on those people working in fields where there is a conflict.

If you can see infinite between the lines of code the face of the devil will appear. If you understand that the whitespace outside the code is also infinite, you will see God.

:)

In reply to katisara (msg #97):

Give me a scientific field that challenges the concept of God.

In reply to TheMonk (msg #98):

I have seen enough Demon code in my day.

In reply to Tlaloc (msg #100):

>I've seen enough Daemon code

fixed. :)

In reply to TheMonk (msg #101):

Unix freak!

regarding teh death of creationsim: I am refering specifically to creationsim in conflict with evolution. "hybrid" creationsim in which evolution is the mechanism of creation is exempt from that analysis. For example I have only heard from one Hindu on ethe subject and tehy were of teh opinion that teh sequence and the timing of creation described in eh vetic myths and cycles of upwards reincarnation exactly match the timetables of evolution, and what evolution displays is the leading edge of souls in an ascendant path.
I doubt that one is going down due to a conflict with scientific knowledge.

In reply to silveroak (msg #103):

You are absolutely correct that many a Hindu has no problem with evolution but there are a great many in the Hindu faith that take a rather rabid Creationist stance against evolution.  When you deal with the Hindu faith you have to remember that Hinduism is a collection of thousands of beliefs.

Like some fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and Jews, they dismiss evolution. Unlike those religions, who believe the world has existed only six to ten thousand years, some fundamentalist Hindus believe it has been going for billions and billions of years which is a time frame far longer than geology allows. To them human beings have been here all that time.  Not only did Dinosaurs and humans run around together but so did those wonderful Trilobites.

If you wish for an example, look up Michael Cremo and his utterly unscientific book, published with the help of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, Forbidden Archeology.  He is thoroughly unscientific and uses debunked specimens to make his point.

I would say that Hindu Creationism, considering there are over a billion Hindus, is not going anywhere soon.

On a side note: work on the "teh" thingy.  Not being a dick or anything but it detracts from your usual intelligent posts.
This message was last edited by the player at 07:12, Wed 05 Jan 2011.

yes, I am prone to typos.
And I am aware that there is a certain degree of unscientific thought within Hinduism. I have met Hindus who insist that tehre is unbelievably ancient ancient Sanscrit writing near the Jesus statue (Can't think of the proper name right off) in Rio De Jenaro. I have been there and some of the tourists asked the guide about this writing, and it simply is not there. However the 'rabid' Hindus still tend to be, in my experience, far more placid than the 'reasonable' Christian creationists.

The big one is right now neurologists are gradually disassembling the brain to determine the 'cause' of free will, if it exists, why we perceive it. There's also discussions about mapping the patterns of the brain, and if that pattern is the 'identity' of the person, if it can be copied, and what the ramifications are of that. I just finished reading Ray Kurzeil's book which, while not something I'd cite as non-fiction itself, references a number of neurological experiments and hypothesis in use *right now* or anticipated in the near future which breach this subject. This is a challenge to the idea of free will and the soul, fundamentals in most religions.

In approximately ten to twenty more years we will have computers approaching the complexity (in number of connections) of the human brain. It is debated that then we may be able to create the first computers to pass the Turing test. Then you have the debate about consciousness and, again, the soul, fundamental in most religions.

There have also been expiriments where it has been shown that the 'divine experience' can be replicated with magnetic feilds, even in people who have never had it before (indicating it is not simply activating a memory)

In reply to silveroak (msg #105):

If you keep up with Indian news organizations you would see that there is much concern about Hindu extremists who base their views on their particular Hindu worldview.  The Army of god Rama and Army for Hindu Religion are two that come to mind but there a many more.

The Indians I have met are the more worldly-wise immigrants and world travellers but from casual conversation I have learned they all of disdain for certain sectors of their society that they see as uneducated and overly pushy with their religious views.  One of my friends referred to them as "trailer park Hindus".  (No offense to those who live in trailer parks, just repeating what I heard.)

In reply to katisara (msg #106):

I love Ray Kurzweil.

But a question for the religious ones here: is the "soul" housed in the brain?  If one would map out a person's brain patterns would one have a map of their soul?  As you say Kat, if the scientist involved in this type of research believed those things then there would be a conflict.  Another question I would have is would a person who believed a particular religion engage in research that they believed had the potential of disproving the religion they have faith in?  That is a scientist I have no met yet.

To silveroak:

I am sure that scientists can induce a religious experience but that capacity is ancient and didn't require magnetic waves.  All that is required is nature's bounty: snake venoms, frog venoms, mushrooms, marijuana, hashish, peyote, mescaline, etc.  Neurochemists has noted how these substances react in the brain but I have not yet read a paper that concludes that all faith is merely a chemical imbalance.

I guess the conflict would be generated if had a problem knowing that particular parts of the brain control different aspects of your personality and experiences.  I wonder if most churches are surrounded by heavy magnetic fields?

I guess my problem is that I am an Atheist and I don't see how any of this challenges the concept of God or a Soul.  If neurochemistry and artificial intelligence challenge those notions, and I don't see how they do, then I would have to say your faith is not really faith but rather it is a hypothesis that science has not falsified yet.  If that is how some see their faith then I guess we are in agreement.

http://www.erowid.org/tech/devices_article1.shtml

they have actually mapped out areas to stimulate magnetically that can cause depression, euphoria, and in one notable expiriment actually *created* artistic ability by stimulating the brain wave patterns of an autism patient in a healthy person.

This message was last edited by the player at 16:35, Wed 05 Jan 2011.

In reply to silveroak (msg #110):

Interesting research but does this challenge religion?  As I noted, inducing mystical states has been around a long time the only difference here is the method used.

It depends on your definitions. If you define the soul as teh part of you that connects with God then it apparently is connected in some way to the right temporal lobe.

In reply to silveroak (msg #112):

Interesting definition but nowhere in your article do I see the term "soul" used.  No one claims to have found the soul, they just claim to be able to induce a feeling akin to a religious experience.

Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier.  Had a chance to check in and read the posts a few times over the holidays, but not to reply.  But, better late then never, no?

(Oh, and happy belated holidays, all!)






[emphasis added]
This is my point, though: we have no idea what the possible variations are for the things people talk about when doing this.  We have a sample of one in each case.  The probabilities they're multiplying together to get their final answer are completely made up, and the fact that they're multiplying them means they're assuming independence.  These are big assumptions, with no empirical (or even theoretical, as far as I know) backing.  That doesn't make them wrong, but it does make me very hesitant to try to draw any conclusions from them.

Put another way, I get a bit skeptical when someone tells me every data point we have is an outlier.  If we only have one sample, why should we assume it's incredibly unlikely?

Tlaloc, can you summarize your position on the "religion and science can't contradict" issue for me?  I've sort of lost track of it a bit in skimming over all the recent posts.  If I recall correctly, you believe evolution is scientifically established, and think that creationists are wrong.  But at the same time you seem to be arguing that science can't cause difficult contradictions for religion.  Have I misunderstood or missed something?

As a side issue, stating that "religion and science can't contradict" is nonsensical.  Religion and science describe two very different things.  Religion does not describe science and therefore cannot contradict it (no matter how hard it tries); science does not describe religion and therefore cannot contradict it.

It is like me saying that "science and imagination cannot contradict."

So if evolution is proven, so what?  Religion does not state facts; it may have allegories or beliefs, but if a "creationist" says there is no evolution because of what the Bible says, that's his (mistaken) interpretation of the Bible as a factual tool to disprove science...and, I might add, is just as nonsensical as trying to go the opposite way to disprove religion.

I think many, many religious people would disagree strongly with the statement that "religion does not state facts."  Maybe it shouldn't state facts, and stick to faith, beliefs, or what have you, but in most cases it still does.  One person's religion might say that the bible isn't a factual account of history, but if someone else's religion says it is, who's to say which is a "religion" and which isn't?

Also, isn't saying someone interpretation of the bible is mistaken implying that there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to interpret the bible?  Thus, isn't a religious statement about facts?  The idea that there's a "wrong" way to interpret the bible seems to contradict the idea that religion doesn't state facts.

I can see where people are coming from with the non-overlapping magisteria idea, but it seems like an overly idealized version of what they think should be the case, rather than what is the case in practice.  Sure, if religions never made claims about the real world, then science and religion would never contradict.  But the vast majority of religions do make claims about what's real, what isn't, what happened in the past and what didn't, etc.

Did Joseph Smith actually find some golden tablets?  That's a factual, real-world question that has a definite yes/no answer.  And if someday science advances to the point where we can answer it definitively, there's a potential for conflict.  Likewise the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.  If science ever becomes capable of determining if that actually did or didn't happen, that had a big impact on christianity.  There might be some christians who wouldn't find their faith shaken if they found out that Jesus beyond a doubt didn't raise from the dead, but I think most would think that a big contradiction with their beliefs.

Most religions include both teachings (what you should do to be a good person, etc.) and histories/stories/accounts (what actually happened, and how we found out about the teachings).  Science might not have much to say about the former, but it can weigh in on the later.  And I don't think many religious people are willing to say that the histories/stories/accounts of how their religion was founded, etc., are irrelevant to their beliefs in its teachings.

I like the philosophy behind most religions just fine ("Be excellent to one another"), but the specifics tend to break everything down and make me want to slap people.

I didn't say that it can't.  What I said was that religion and science are two completely different things and that I have known quite a few scientists who have faith in one religion or another.

My point is that science has not proven the existence or non-existence of God and that there really is no conflict in that arena.  Religion and science CAN conflict when you say the church says: the Earth is flat, the Earth rides on the back of a giant turtle, the Sun goes around the Earth, or some such thing like that.



I don't "believe" evolution is scientifically established.  I know it is.



I believe my first response answers this question.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:55, Thu 06 Jan 2011.

In reply to Heath (msg #116):

Actually Heath, the followers of religion DO state facts.  Like the Earth is 6,000 years old according to the Bible.  Or the Earth is tens of billions of years old and humans have been on it all this time.

I am speaking of the essential question of faith: does God (or Gods) exist?

POINT 1

I think you miss my point.  Certainly religions "have" facts in them.  But we should not confuse facts used within a religion as religion itself.

For example, to say Mary conceived of Jesus as a virgin birth is a statement of fact.  It may or may not be true, but it is not religion.

However, saying "Jesus is the Son of God who was born of Mary" is a religious statement.  Although it has an amalgam fact "born of Mary," that is a directional fact (pointing to the identity of Jesus for clarity), not a religious fact.  Whether Jesus was actually the "Son of God" is a religious statement that cannot be proven nor disproven by science.

And if science proves that Jesus was not born "of Mary" somehow, the religious fact, whether he is the Son of God, will still remain unprovable by science; therefore, the religion cannot be disproved; facts can only be clarified or disproved.

___

POINT 2

The other major problem I have here is that, even if a fact can be considered "religious," most "facts" are just personal interpretations, not bearing on religion.

Was the earth created in 7 days?  I think not.  That is an allegory.  But some will claim it is a true fact because it is in the Bible.  Then others will say the Bible cannot be true because that's scientifically impossible.  A war of interpretations only hurts both sides (religion and science).

The only thing that is really "religion" is a path to salvation.  Is baptism necessary?  Is repentance necessary?  What are right and wrong actions?  What is God's plan?  These are impossible to prove through science, or disprove.

___

POINT 3

Back to my initial post, trying to use science against religion is like trying to use it to disprove imagination.  Most religions hold that God is all-powerful.  He is outside the system much as a computer programmer is outside the program where he defines the laws of the program.

If God is omnipotent, as the religions believe, then by definition he can do anything, even break the laws of science.  He could by definition create the earth in a millisecond.  He could construct the entire world and manufacture evidence to deceive us into believing evolution even though it is proven by science.

How do you disprove that?  How can science ever disprove that?  I think science can whittle away at incorrect yet perpetuated facts in religions, and thus add clarity to help in a more correct interpretation of religious stories and accounts.  But thinking that science can prove or disprove creationism when the Creator is by definition all-powerful...well, I don't see how that's possible.

Before we go any further we need to clear something up.



A fact is a statement that is true or something that can be proven.  The virgin birth is not a statement of fact.  I am not one who believes that different people have different facts.  There is a fact and there is a falsehood or belief.

Your defining of an untrue "fact" renders any debate involving science impossible.

A "statement of fact" is not a "fact."  A "statement of fact" is an assertion of fact.  My arguments stand as written.

EDIT: I should point out that you prove my point.  Because of the very nature of the statement, you can argue that it is true or untrue, and perhaps even produce evidence one way or the other.  That demonstrates that it is a factual issue, not a religious issue.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:11, Wed 05 Jan 2011.

In reply to Heath (msg #123):



Then your points are invalid and I shall move on.  Changing the meaning of the word fact is not something that interests me.

Enjoy!

You're going to make this tedious for me, aren't you...?

I didn't change the meaning of a word.  Many of the supposed "facts" in religion are just personal interpretations of what is written, such as the earth was created in 7 days assertion.  Therefore, they are not "facts."

(However, if your definition of "fact" is that a "personal interpretation" is a fact, then you are correct.  If that is not the case, then once again, you have just proven my point for me.)

QED

The fact that you say "true fact":



tells me that you use the term "fact" any way you wish and that you have no idea as to what a fact really is.  "Fact" has a definition and to make an argument that the definition of fact is based on the fact that people confuse "fact" and faith is spurious logic at best.  But hey, you go for it.

Or this little gem:



You are wrong on this statement being correct and that it is my definition.  By all means, supply a credible source that states that one's "interpretation" = fact.

After five years of high school debate and four years of college debate I can honestly say that I no longer have an appetite for revisionist definition of the English language.  I won't argue the nebulous "point" you think you are making but do not try to define what I say into something that I did not.

My point is not that the article states what a soul is, I never claimed that. I point out that *IF* that is your definition of a soul *THEN* the scientific discovery has some impact on your belief system. To determine how science can affect faith you you have to start with what is believed.
Of course if your belief is constrained entirely to that which cannot be disproved one could argue that it is also constrained to that which is irrlevant. If God is so distant and unknowable that science cannot address him then is he not also so distant and unknowable that *we* canot address him? That he in fact has no more meaning than the actual pictures over the sicteen chapel. Perhaps less since those at least have artistic signifigance and tangible reality.

It seems like you are defining religion, de facto, as being 'things science can't prove', which is a moving target. The resurrection of Jesus is a fact of my religion - it is a requirement of my religious beliefs. It is the event which underpins the whole thing. If someone invented a time machine which went back to day 4 after Jesus died and there's still a corpse, or caught images of an apostle sneaking dead Jesus out the back door, that would disprove critical religious beliefs. But you seem to be saying that, if we did that, the historical fact of Jesus's resurrection isn't 'religion'.

My religion very clearly states the staples of its beliefs. It includes that Jesus was born from Mary, that he lived, died, and was resurrected. These are historical facts that my religion are founded upon. If you disprove those facts, to a very real degree, you disprove the religion. If you prove Jesus never lived, the Roman Catholic Church will no longer exist, except as an act of aggressive self-delusion.

Forget 4 days after- if someon could (hypothetically) conclusively prove that teh ossuary found in the "Jesus tomb" documentry (technically -  though it's academic standing is closer to an infomercial) were in fact Jesus, wouldn't that have a major impact on the religion? Or would that be subject to "he rose from the dea three days later, ascended bodilly into heaven 40 days after that and a century later snuck back down with some angels to put his bones in a box, having traded in his copropreal body for a heavenly body"

I think the point is that religion does have a moving target quality to it. If you disprove some historical evidence the believers that have invested time, money, or any other resource, are more likely to justify the discovery or even seek validation through it than to accept that their religion is void.

Whether Jesus was resurrected is not a requirement of your religious beliefs, but instead the religious premise on which that asserted fact is based.  In other words, that Jesus was the "Son of God" is a religious premise resulting in his resurrection.  Science cannot disprove if he was resurrected.

And that's the problem with the general argument:  It is very difficult for phsycial sciences to "disprove" anything.  (Whether they can prove things is a separate matter.)

But also to my point:  Religion is about salvation, principles, and ordinances, not about facts.  We should not confuse religion with religious organizations.

For example, I can create today the "Church of Heath" which claims that Bibles cannot be burned because God will protect them.  That fact is easily disproved.  But that "fact" is not religion at all, but merely a sectarian allegation based on personal interpretation.

The same is true of Catholicism.  Though not Catholic myself, I believe that the vast majority of Catholic religious principles and tenets are true -- salvation through Christ, need for baptism, commandments, sin, etc.  It is the incorporation of these tenets into practices through the interpretations of men where I run into difficulty.  That does not mean that Catholicism is not true, but merely that its interpretations and implentations may be disproven (such as condemning Galileo).


But would it?  Is his body really necessary to prove resurrection?  Couldn't he be resurrected by an Almighty God by just refashioning atoms?  If not, I feel sorry for all those corpses that have crumbled into dust or been cremated.  And if an apostle were trying to surreptitiously create the illusion that the body disappeared, so what?  These are all facts that neither prove nor disprove if Jesus' soul was resurrected into a perfect body.


It isn't religion.  Religion is the principles of salvation.  Let's go a step further.  Imagine that the Bible factual accounts are proven totally false in every way.  Does that disprove the theories in the Sermon on the Mount?  Does that disprove that there is a savior who took upon himself the sins of Man?  It could have happened in a number of ways.  The Bible accounts could be allegorical.  Focusing on the "facts" of the Bible is a dangerous road toward disappointment.


You are basing your statement on a religious organization, not on religion.  These are two separate things.  The religious principles of the Catholic Church can still be all true even if none of that happened.

Don't get me wrong, though.  Religious organization is important, but the two should not be confused.

This goes back to what I espoused here a few years ago:  the Three Principles of Rightness, in which I defined three things to look for when searching out a religious organization to join.  First, does it espouse right truths and principles (what is right and wrong, sin and goodness, the path to salvation, etc.); Second, does it espouse right facts and foundations (like you are saying, the resurrection of Jesus); Third, does it have proper ordinances (which includes claiming authority to act on behalf of God and authority to perform rites such as baptism).

Now, true "religion" is only based on the first and third principles -- that is what needs to be proven or disproven -- yet cannot be.  It is only when you get into the second principle (rightness of facts), which usually frames the other two principles but is not necessary for them, that there are difficulties with science or facts.  However, the second principle is the least important of all of them and the most open to interpretation and error.  It is the one that is not really important for salvation at all.

Given the current conversation, I thought this article which just came out today was quite apropos:


The Pope seems to be backing up my comments above.  A "religious" belief is that God's mind is behind all science, and cannot be disproven.  He does not outright reject the science, but rather embraces it as the work of God.  That is true religion coming out there, not factual interpretation.

And that's where we disagree. I feel like what you're describing is philosophy. The Sermon on the Mount, the idea of resurrection, these are just philosophy, ideas or understandings of the world. It's no more religious than Taoists talking about 'the Way' or Confuscianism elaborating on what is appropriate conduct (or Miss Manners, doing the same, albeit with a good deal less wisdom).

Religion is the point where belief steps beyond mere philosophy and applies it to the believed, factual nature of the Universe, God, and events surrounding them.

One more point on katisara's points:  while I don't think we technically disagree on the end game, I think the comment is better classified like this:

FACT (assailable):
Jesus' physical body no longer exists because it was resurrected.

RELIGIOUS FACT (unassailable):
Jesus was resurrected into a perfect body by the power of God.

FACT (assailable):
The Big Bang created the universe.

RELIGIOUS FACT (unassailable):
God is behind the Big Bang.

FACT (assailable):
God destroyed the earth through a Flood and preserved Noah.

ALLEGORICAL/RELIGIOUS FACT taken from Noah's story (unassailable):
God is all powerful, and we owe our existence to Him and must avoid sin or risk peril of our eternal souls.

I hope that clarifies my points.  I will grant that there may be an exception here or there, but I can't think of any offhand.

Sounds like the problem here is one of definitions (what a surprise! ;) ).  To Heath, "religion" means something different than it does to me or katisara (and I'm guessing others).  To Heath, "religion" is only stuff that cannot be objectively determined to be true or false.  Others (like myself) would say that the factual/historical/testable statements on which the beliefs are based are also part of the religion.

I'm happy to agree that, essentially by definition, science and religion can't disagree if we use Heath's definition of religion.

Heath, can you agree that if we use our definition of religion (one that includes beliefs about facts, events, etc. as well as normative and testable beliefs), then science and religion can be in conflict?

I don't think we disagree.

First, much of religion is philosophical principle.  However, the key difference is that the philosophical principles are geared to lead a person to eternal salvation, which is religion, not philosophy.

For example, turning the other cheek is not true philosophy.  Philosophy would not say that you will gain more eternal salvation for letting someone injure you twice instead of intervening; it would say that justice should be sought and injury should be avoided.  Philosophy would not say the "meek will inherit the earth" because what does inherit the earth mean logically?  Why would the meek get anything; they'd be walked over by the bold and strong.

(In other words, much as the facts frame some of the religious principles, so also does philosophical belief frame the religious principles of salvation, and are assailable.  The "meek" may inherit the earth, but there are likely times when you shouldn't be meek...does that invalidate the sermon on the mount?)

Also, true religion has completely non-philosophical areas as well, particularly with rites.  In other words, you must promise yourself to God (through baptism or what have you) and therefore dedicate yourself to His service to some extent for salvation.  These are religious principles, not philosophical ones, and also can't be disproven.

Now we come to the topic of this thread:  a proof for God.  This is the ontological argument, as it's sometimes called.  It is a philosophic question, not a religious one.  For once God can be proven, the proof is not religion, but proven theory (scientific or philosophical).  Until that time, faith is required, which is a religious principle unassailable by science, and God cannot by definition be disproven, so it is a religious principle there as well.

Your definition of religion is inadequate and faulty.  You want me to agree to a faulty premise which essentially groups all religious identities into one grouping.

The other problem is that you are intermingling facts with the religious premises upon which the facts are based.  In other words, you leave out the premise.  It should read something like this:

Religious fact: Jesus is the Son of God.
Demonstrative fact:  Jesus lived.
Demonstrative fact:  Jesus died.
Religious fact:  Jesus was resurrected
Demonstrative fact:  Jesus' physical body disappeared from the tomb when he was resurrected.

This skips straight to the last demonstrative fact, which is really irrelevant to the religious issue.

So if I buy into your proposal above, I am buying into faulty logic which skips over defining the essential premises.

Give me some specific examples if you have questions, and maybe I can elaborate further.  I can't guarantee I'm right 100% of the time, but I see this huge hole in the logic and proofs being presented above, which is why I stepped in to intervene.

Here's another quick example:

Hell:

Religious Premise:  For salvation, one must not sin.
Religious Premise:  Sinning will lead to negative consequences on one's salvation.

So far, neither of these can ever be disproven by science.

Fact:  The Catholic church preached that sinning may lead one to the literal burning of fires in hell (and other tortures).

Fact:  This literal hell teaching came about through the Doctrine of Reserve, wherein the church used fear of a burning hell to aid illiterate and uneducated members avoid sin, and therefore mixed biblical allegory with Roman and Greek beliefs in the Helenization process (i.e., primarily to help attract Roman citizens to conversion).

Now, we can show through historical account and history that there are no burning fires of hell (but, admittedly, we can never disprove through science that there are no burning fires of hell).  But regardless, the Catholic Church would not be discredited because it used a specific doctrine to justify its teachings to further the religious premises above.  And it is these religious premises which cannot be proven nor disproven.

If I agree to Tycho's proposal, then the religious premises would be obscured by the two facts and it would appear that the Catholic Church is discredited and untrue when in fact the religious basis of the "facts" remain unable to be disproven.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:35, Thu 06 Jan 2011.

To be short, this is inaccurate.  The problem is not "definition" but overgeneralization without qualification.  It oversimplifies a complicated subject by improperly clumping together separate ideas as a form of proof, which then leads to faulty, incomplete logic.

Ermm...uncle?  I guess if you get to make up the definitions...and the rules...and everything else, yes, all you say is true.  For those who disagree with your definitions, though, we reach a different conclusion.

You don't think demonstrative facts matter to religion, or "aren't religion," or whatever, and that's fine.  But plenty of other people do (and not just heathens like me ;) ).  You're defining "religion" in a way that most religious people wouldn't agree with.  Maybe it doesn't matter at all to your faith that Jesus lived, but I'd say the vast, vast majority of Christians of all stripes consider it to be very, very important to them religiously.  Maybe their beliefs are "inadequate and faulty" but I'm not sure why you feel it's up to you to.

Like I said, though, under your definition or "religion," I'm happy to accept that religion and science can't contradict.  I'm just don't think your definition of religion matches what religious people actually consider to be "religion."  I think most people (and, to be honest, I'd wager you're included in this, if it weren't a debate setting) actually think their religion depends on facts, and involves facts, not just norms and rituals.  Do you honestly think it doesn't matter at all to your faith whether or not Joseph Smith actually found the plates with the book of Mormon on them?  Would finding out that he just made it all up as a prank not affect your religious beliefs at all?  Would learning that Jesus never existed really not make you question that he's the key to salvation?

Maybe it's just an issue of definitions, so I'll try to rephrase it:  scientific findings can make people question their religious beliefs if they contradict the facts upon which their beliefs are built.  Can you agree with that?


As an aside, in your reply to katisara, you said that God couldn't be disproven, "by definition."  That seemed odd to me.  Is "unable to be disproven"  actually part of your definition of God?  If so, that seems a self-fulfilling belief.  Why not just define "2+2=5" as "the equation that cannot be disproven" and believe it?  The truth value of something shouldn't really be part of its own definition, should it?  Doing so is just assuming the result, effectively.  Sort of proof by assumption, as it were: "1.  assume God exists, 2. therefore God exists."  Am I misunderstanding what you meant?

By the by, which proof are you talking about?  I don't think I or katisara are trying to prove anything, so much as are disagreeing with the idea that religions and science cannot disagree.  Like I said in an earlier post, the "non-overlapping magisteria" idea seems good at first, but it doesn't seem to reflect reality:  most religious people actually think their beliefs about reality are true, not just opinions or allegories.

Perhaps part of the disagreement is me misunderstanding what you're arguing against?
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:19, Thu 06 Jan 2011.

To repeat, it's not definitions.  I make these points to help you guys argue more efficiently, not so you can argue against me.  You claim that I am making up definitions when I am claiming that those who argue against God are making up definitions that include more than they claim in order to prove their point, creating a fallacious argument.  Thus, it is an overgeneralization problem.

When I say God cannot be disproven by definition, you may have missed my example.

Religious Premise:  God is all powerful.

Conclusion:  God can do anything.  ANYTHING.  ANYTHING!!!

So how do you disprove this?  You create a time machine and go back in time to disprove something?  No, because God can make you think you're going back in time when you're really dreaming.  Or maybe God whisks you to a mirror dimension to think what you're seeing is true.  Or any one of a million things...  How? BECAUSE GOD CAN DO ANYTHING!

Therefore, how can you ever disprove God using science when God can do anything and you can't?

Conclusion:  You can never disprove God by definition.

(This doesn't even get into theories like God by definition is outside our universe and knowable laws and outside of our concept of time...or any of those religious premises.)

HOWEVER, and this is a BIG However, you can put forth theories that demonstrate that certain issues surrounding God are more or less likely to be true.  But to disprove the existence of a being that can literally do anything?  Impossible unless you change the definition of "God."

And I still disagree with you. Both Confuscianism and Taoism teach humility and modesty, and that this will ultimately lead to good things. Philosophy does not require cold rationalism.

You seem to pin religion on 'something promising salvation', which also seems incomplete. The Greeks believed basically everyone suffers forever when they die, which hardly sounds like 'salvation' to me. The Mayans and Aztecs had similar beliefs, of descending into the underworld and that's about all there is. Buddhism describes a process in which the act of salvation is the active destruction of the ego, the only part of myself that I consider 'me'. The goal doesn't seem to be my salvation, but my being at peace with my fate. Yet all of these are religions (and even if you disagree with my interpretation of one, there are two more there, and dozens more I haven't mentioned).

It probably won't help, but here are definitions for philosophy and religion:

Philosophy - "Philosophy is a study of problems which are ultimate, abstract and very general. These problems are concerned with the nature of existence, knowledge, morality, reason and human purpose."
Jenny Teichmann and Katherine C. Evans, Philosophy: A Beginner's Guide (Blackwell Publishing, 1999)
"The aim of philosophical inquiry is to gain insight into questions about knowledge, truth, reason, reality, meaning, mind, and value."
A.C. Grayling, Philosophy 1: A Guide through the Subject (Oxford University Press, 1998)

Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine.


I don't see anything which convinces me that the "cause of the universe" or "nature of life" or "human beings' relation" to the supernatural may not be (supposed) facts.


Regarding my religious beliefs, the RCC was not proven wrong (on the whole) about Hell (even supposing such a thing were proven). The RCC has a set of core beliefs, which are critical to defining the Church and the religion it follows, a number of canonical but not core beliefs (which, AFAIK, none have been proven wrong, even when founded on fact), and a number of beliefs which are founded based on canon, but are not canon themselves, nor core (for instance, heliocentrism), whose proof or not is irrelevant to the religion itself.

Those core beliefs are summed up on the Apostles' Creed. IMO, anyone who does not believe in the Apostles' Creed (understanding the word 'Catholic' in its original meaning, 'Universal'), I don't consider to follow the religion of Christianity. The beliefs in the Creed define what Christianity is, and just about every Christian Church you care to name, including the LDS Church, believe that statement of faith. This is not just my opinion either, it is the most common technical definition (Briggs, Charles A. The fundamental Christian faith: the origin, history and interpretation of the Apostles' and Nicene creeds. C. Scribner's sons, 1913). However, some of those statements are based on actual facts - Jesus was alive, Jesus was crucified and died, etc. I don't need proof for those - they're matter of faith. However, if they were absolutely disproven, I could no longer follow that Creed and, by definition, I could not be Christian. I'd be something else. Neo-Christian maybe. It would be a very similar, but ultimately new religion.

I'm glad you point out the differences, since they are key to understanding what I am saying.  If you take religion as a sectarian belief (i.e., by religious organization), you will begin to find mixed facts, philosophy, and religion.  I am fine with you using the definition "religious organization X" and putting in a certain religious organization's name.  But Religion (with a large R) is not capable of being defined by overgeneralizing when there are so many different beliefs.

You are right about philosophy, but the key is that doing good things leads to good things is not the same as saying doing good things leads to salvation, which is a religious, not philosophical, idea.

Exactly.  This is closer to what I am saying.


That's a religious belief held by you that cannot be disproven by science, right? QED.


Exactly...


Two points here.  As mentioned above, they cannot be absolutely disproven because God by definition can do anything.  Second, this depends on your definition of "Christian" which is a religious belief that cannot be proven nor disproven.  QED again.


And again, you are referring to a sectarian definition of religion, which is fine but gets confusing when talking about general religious proofs such as the existence of God or particular tenets of a religion.

The key here is the premise definition:

Religious Premise: God is all-powerful.

You have two options here:  1) disprove the premise, or 2) accept the premise to disprove God.

So how do you disprove that premise that God is all-powerful?  Impossible.
If you accept the premise to disprove God, then you get to an equally impossible argument because disproving God means disproving something all-powerful.

It is not technically a circular argument.  Your point tries to do away with the critical point in a debate of setting the premise.  A premise must define the aspects of the premise, which in this case means that God is all-powerful.  (Granted, in some religious beliefs, there are lesser Gods or whatever.  That would be a different proof.)

I think I'm talking more generally about the thread topic.  But religion and science can absolutely disagree given a basic premise:

1) Science is developing (so, for example, the idea that Newtonian physics is the ultimate law was superceded by Einsteinian physics -- Big Bang, etc.); so we have to accept the premise that science may be inapplicable in certain situations.

2)  If God by definition is all powerful, that puts a kink in the idea that science can prove or disprove anything as it relates to God.  It may show evolution is perfectly true, but an omnipotent God could insert "evidence" in a millisecond to test our faith.  (This is an extreme example, but the type of thing that must be accepted before asserting a final "proof".)

3) Religion is subject to personal interpretation and therefore its assertions of "fact" are subject to human error even if the underlying religious points are accurate.

Add on "existing is 'anything', therefor God exists" and you've proven the existence of God by assumption.  Congratulations, but don't expect many people to be convinced. ;) The trouble is that your premise is contradicted by the issue in question.  If God doesn't exist, then he isn't all powerful.  Assuming He is all-powerful is just begging the question.


A god in general, with no other properties than omnipotence?  Yeah, you probably couldn't.  However, if you're talking about a particular god, that has other properties (such as omnibenevolence, or a fear of water, or green skin, or whatever), then you might be able to disprove them.  Depends on the god you're talking about, and what properties they are said to have.  If, in your example, the god in question is one that doesn't actively deceive people, then the whole "make you think you saw the opposite of what you saw" thing doesn't work.




I think only you are talking about Religion (big R) though.  The rest of us are speaking about specific religions.



Okay, first, I think you might want to drop the "QED" thing.  It's entirely unnecessary, makes you come off not well, and you're not using it correctly...unless "this depends on your definition of christian which is a religious belief that cannot be proven nor disproven" is the statement you set out to prove.  ;)

Secondly, this whole "none of the stuff about Jesus could ever be disproven because God can do anything" line also means that nothing can ever be disproven or proven (God could be tricking you on that too), which makes everything religion by your definition.  In order to have any kind of reasonable discussion, I think we need to agree that some things really are objectively true or false, and that it's possible for us to gain some insight into at least some of them.  Otherwise we might as well just say "well, this could all just be a dream anyway," throw up our hands and give up, right?  By the very fact that you're bothering to discuss this, it seems clear that you think some things are true and some are false, and that we can weigh up the evidence and decide reasonably which are which in some cases.  At very least, you're implicitly assuming that what we see in reality has some bearing on what we should believe.


Okay, can you agree that for those of us using a "sectarian definition" of religion, that science and religion can in some cases come into conflict, and that religious beliefs can be contradicted, in some cases, by scientific findings?



In which case you've proved the existence of God!  Amazing...but wait, put "three sided circles" in place of God in your argument, and you've suddenly proven the existence of three sided circles.  Or pink unicorns, or ANYTHING else.  The form of your argument is tautological.  You've assumed your desired conclusion by making an even bigger assumption than the one in question.

The "trick" here is that one need not accept your premise.  If that premise is contingent on the point in question (the existence of God), then you can't really use it as an assumption for your argument.


I'd say it's begging the question.  Maybe not technically circular logic, but close enough that it's not good reasoning.


Fair enough.  If we can agree that science and religion can disagree, then I'm happy.  I'm not arguing that science can disprove God, just that I think the idea of non-overlapping magisteria doesn't really represent the fact that religious beliefs are held by many on things that science really can weigh in on.

It's worth mentioning that religions are developing as well.  Christianity used to accept slavery without question, beating wives and children was considered all right, and so on and so forth.  If you'll pardon the term, religion evolves with the times.  This isn't a bad thing, nor is it a sign of a flaw in religion as a concept.  Like science, it strives towards perfection.

I don't know how many of you write professionally, but imagine you are writing a poem.  Your first draft may have typos and errors.  Your second draft will be better, but still contain mistakes.  It's through the editing process that you improve your work, producing something that may never be perfect, but will always be better than before.

Science changes.  Religion changes.  And this is a good thing.

A nice metaphore GMC.  There is a difference n what they each are getting better at, but I think the basic thought is good.

It's also not completely true. Like I said previously, the RCC has a core set of dogmas, to which little of substance has been added since around 600AD (discounting here elevating something that was already commonly accepted, but not recognized as 'core dogma'), and has never ever had anything removed from it. Successfully disproving this core dogma would be a serious coup against the Church.

Can religion and science be in conflict? Sure. It has happened. reference Gallileo.
But as noted elsewhere both religion and science change when confronted with contradictory and incontravertable facts.
The difference is that some religions make a claim to inerrancy that is difficult to reconcile with "oops, we made a mistake", and where religion has come into conflict with science religion has generally wound up with a bloody nose, specifically because the religions most likely to come into conflict with science are those which claim to be revealed.
Which is why scientists of the late 19th and early 20th century tended to be looking into Eastern mystical dreligions so heavilly- it was hard for many of them to take seriously a religion which had claimed to be infallibel and then argued vehemantly agaisnt what turned out to be fairly simple and ultimately provable facts about the universe.
But at teh same time not every aspect of any religion will be able to be put under the microscope of science, and teh religion in and of itself will never be disprovable, because religion is far more complex than a single hypothesis which can be proven or disproven. It is a network of beliefs and community and emotions that will continue to evolve like any other cultural group. Because ultimately religion is a culture, not a theory.

In reply to Grandmaster Cain (msg #148):


I think this goes back to a comment made earlier about the difference between a religion and its practice.  Many Christians were against both, even back to during the sixteenth and seventeenth century Reverend Spaferd, William white, George Rupert, etc, were all against such things, unfortunately, they often don’t get covered in the typical history book (see Mathew, 2002, and Zola, 2005, for reviews).

But how can the "core dogma" ever be disproven if God is all-powerful and can do anything (which is also part of the dogma)?  That's exactly what I'm saying here.  For all we know, we could be a figment of God's imagination.  (Yes, I'm taking this back to Descarte and Aristotle arguments here.)

Also, perhaps I didn't clarify enough, but there is a difference between a "religion" and a religious organization or sect.  Even if a Catholic fact supporting its dogma were proven incorrect, the underlying religious beliefs would still be valid.  So I agree with katisara to the extent his comments are restricted to a particular religious organization, but not to "RELIGION" itself.

Resorting to a dictionary definition *gasp*, religion is a reverence for or belief in supernatural powers and God.  In other words, the definition we use should be able to be converted to "religious."  Does he believe in religion?  Yes, he is religious?  To say, "Yes, he is Catholic?" while answering the question, also answers a question not posed, which takes the inquiry into the specific religious sect/organization.  This is where it can get confusing in a debate...by skipping a step.

EXACTLY!  Religion requires an assumption.  The gap in the assumption is not made by proof, but by FAITH.


Not really.  It's a premise.  Reversing to the negatives is a fallacy that you just resorted to.


Agreed, except to the last point.  You assume that seeing the opposite of what you saw is somehow deception.  God also told Abraham he would have to sacrifice his son, but then countermanded it last minute.  He also says not to kill, yet makes exceptions.  Deception is calling good evil and evil good.  Otherwise, I debate whether your comment rises to the level of "deception."


While that may be true, my point is that it is important not to equate conclusions as to one religion as if they apply to all religions.  THat happens all too often with generalized questions like the title of this thread.


Don't take away my fun.  :)  If my logic is sound, I use QED to demonstrate it was a logical point, not an argumentative one.  If that is not taken well, oh well.

Yes, as shown by Descartes and Aristotle.


No, it doesn't.  Religion has to do with God, worship, and salvation.  Anything else is not likely to be religion.


Now, don't twist my words.  Things are objectively true or false, and we can gain insight into them.  But the title of this thread is a PROOF for God, and I'm saying that, while you can get evidence one way or another, you can never, ever PROVE God exists or doesn't exist.


Only as to things relating to omnipotent powers.  If you cut those out of the equation, then we can have definable attributes and facts within the realm of our experience, always keeping in the background that theoretically they could be wrong.


"Relgious" beliefs or Facts held to be true by a "religion?"  Religious beliefs are those related to worship, God, and salvation.  When has science ever proven or disproven anything related to those three things?


Ah, but now you see the point.  It is circular logic because the premise is the point but there is no way to prove the premise.  You are mixing up my argument with the underlying problem.  The problem is that we cannot prove or disprove God.  I am saying that any attempt to prove or disprove God only ends up in circular arguments, and is therefore impossible.


But they can't, for if religion is talking about science, then it is not religion but science.


I would say that religion is in error if it tries to demonstrate a fact is indisputable that is out of the realm of worship, salvation, and God.  In those cases, it must yield to science, but science must yield to the underlying religious premise that God is all-powerful.

2 questions:
1) and what would that difference be exactly? Just saying this is not X" doesn't tell you what it is. So religion is not a religious organization or sect... but what is it? Do the people involved matter, in your understanding of the word, to what it is?

2)
Why? Science does not need to yield to this premise, it needs to consider the claim to be one which is outside it's domain of investigation. To yield would be to assume it is true, whereas the appropriate scientific response is to assume it is irrelevant to scientific fields of study.

Religion is a belief in a supernatural God based on worship, salvation, and the existence of God(s).  If you look at individual sects, you are moving beyond Religion and into religious sects.

Why does that matter?  Because the basis of most religious organizations lends to two fatal deficiencies: 1) an all powerful God is letting imperfect humans administer His affairs on earth and learning from error, thus introducing error into the system, and 2) religious organizations often have factual beliefs that stray from the pure religion they believe in, thus muddying the waters.

The effect of this is that science will not only have a moving target, but will be thinking it is disproving Religion when it is actually only disproving the factual beliefs of a particular religion.


Because that premise is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one.  It is couched in the language itself...as Tycho says, a circular argument that cannot be proven.  I went into detail above about how the premise of religion (God being all-powerful) means that, if it is true, then nothing could actually be proven by anyone who is not all powerful.

You seem to be defining your terms in order to get the outcome you want. Where most of us are willing to discuss for example teh Catholic religion you seem unsatisfied with any definition that is not expansive and overly nebulous. Aside from that:

could you diagram that senatnce? Sure that's somehwat facisious but what is it that is based on worship, salvation, etc...? The belief or the deity? What about religions that do not include salvation? If teh belief is based on the existance of God then is it really belief? Or is it God is based on the existance of God, which is even more circular?
How would you apply this definition to say the Catholic religion as opposed to the Catholic church (organization)? What is the line seperating them? Is the Catholic religion the belief system held by catholics, but not necessarilly as decread by teh church? or is this simply the assertion that how the church asserts that belief may be an imperfect reflection of the religion itself? In which case could it not be said that the religion did really conflict with Galileo in terms of doctrine but that the church had a far greater conflict in terms of authority?

Indeed, you can argue that all life may be an illusion, so the fact that we've positively identified Jesus's genetics line and established that he was still in his tomb, or we sent our Time-Kodak back to film the event may in fact be wrong as we're all just in God's imagination, and God has a wicked sense of humor. And many people may be alright with that, and still believe and just accept the argument that God put a fake Jesus in the tomb to fool all of us. This is the same argument that was satired by the Flying Spaghetti Monster story.

However, most people are willing to accept that physical reality is real, that God isn't in the habit of messing with our scientific instruments for fun, etc., so if we have a picture of something, it really is the truth. Given that God gave us our rational faculties to understand our universe, I really find this position the most tenable. For the population who accepts real life is real and generally unaltered, it is possible to prove the traditional Christian dogma incorrect.

Does that mean it would prove Jesus 'incorrect'? Of course not. As you pointed out, a lot of what Jesus taught is philosophy, which is beyond scientific reproach. But it does invite us to critically look at our religion and say 'hey, maybe the old guys who originally transcribed all of this got something wrong' or 'hey, maybe that was the lesson God wanted us to hold for the past 2,000 years, and now God is inviting us to enter a new understanding of Him, just as He did by sending Jesus down initially'. Christianity would certainly live on, but Roman Catholicism and most other traditional understandings of Christianity would be at least partially disproven (and the fallout would be immense).



Oh definitely. For instance, I don't believe Galileo proved the Christian religion wrong, but it did prove the RCC organization wrong.



But here I think we get into a grey area. Specifically, how you define a religion? (That 'a' being important.) We've touched on this previously when debating which denominations are still Christian. I think everyone agrees that Christianity is a religion, and it is defined by certain features, most notably, believing Jesus is (a) God. If you don't believe that Jesus transcended to Godhood, you may be a philosophical Christian (i.e., one who follows Christ's example), but you are not a religious Christian. Christianity's beliefs, overall, are summed up nicely in the Apostle's Creed, and is oriented around Jesus, God, and their relationship with each other and man.

The grey area is in defining what is actually 'Christianity' (the religion), 'Christianity' (non-critical, religion-oriented beliefs), 'Christianity' (the cultural group), and 'Christianity' (the organizations). Only the first is really 'religion'. Does belief in the existence of a man named Jesus fall into that category? Could you be a religious Christian without believing Jesus existed? I would argue no, but you could be a philosophical Christian. IMO, what you are describing as the religion is in fact the philosophy - it's limited to the philosophical beliefs of 'love one another' and eventually rising to meet God, etc. But philosophy without the meat is still just philosophy. Religion requires the belief in physical events, and physical events can be tested.

Just how disasosciative can one religion be? They are all Christianity, which has many faces. If you try to peel the face from a man, what you have left is a bloody mess. So to is it with something like Christiaity- if you try and seperate the aspects all you have is a mess.

But that assumption could be wrong, right?



Yes, it's a premise.  But assuming a premise that is as in-question as the conclusion you're trying to prove is called begging the question.


I consider deception to be intentionally leading someone to believe something that's not true.  It's not restricted to issues of right or wrong.  If I tell you something with the intent of making you believe something that's false, that's deception, in my opinion.  A God that makes us believe the universe is really old, when in fact He just created it 3 seconds ago, and all our memories are just dreams put in our head by Him would be very much deceptive in my book.




So your conclusion basically boils down to nihilism, and isn't limited to God or religion at all then.  It's not that "science can't disprove or prove God" is that "no one can prove or disprove anything at all."  Why are we even bothering discussing it, in that case?


I think your definition is overly restricted.  Religions assert facts about reality as well.  Saying they shouldn't is a different issue, and saying "it's not religion when they do it" is a semantic issue.  Whatever you want to call it, religions makes claims about the world we live in, about history, about places, etc.  Those claims can be disproven (to the degree that anything can be), and are not outside the realm of science, in my opinion.


Again, seems like we're into semantics here.  I consider the claims that Jesus lived, died on the cross, rose from the dead, cured blindness, walked on water, etc. to be religious beliefs.  You can call them "facts held to be true by religions" if you like, if we can agree that they are within the realm of science (even if science may never actually end up having enough data to weigh in on them).


Let me put it this way:  If God's existence is outside the realm of science, that implies that God's existence or lack thereof makes no observable difference.  Or, perhaps that whatever difference it does make can be equally well explained in another way.  If a universe with God in it looks different to one without Him, then it really is a question science can weigh in on.  The assertion that science has nothing to offer on the question implies that God has no observable effect on the universe.  Which leads one to ask--if that's the case, why believe He exists?

Another way to come at it, is to say that purely philosophical arguments can be used, which would, yes, be outside the realm of science, but not necessarily unprovable.  You're looking only at one single premise, but if other premises are added, then we can look to see if those premises are consistent.  If they lead to a contradiction, then they can't all be true.  That's where the "God can't be omnipotent, omniscient, AND omnibenevolent all at once because suffering exists" argument comes from.  It doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, but it implies that IF He exists, he's not omniscient or not omnibenevolent (and perhaps both).



I'd still consider that a religious belief, but again it seems its a semantic issue.


So, is Mormonism in error for asserting that Joseph Smith found golden plates with the book of mormon written on them?  Is Christianity in error for asserting that Jesus walked on water?  I really think you're asserting too much if you're claiming that it's wrong of religions to make factual claims.

My head hurts also.  I seen this thread and my eyes lit up but that first post WHAT IS THAT!  God?Debate! starts out science.  Not even mention of any divine power (which I would suggest in a thread like this be Assumption #1)

Is pounding the opening with science a way to keep certain types of people away from the arguement?  And then my girl RubySlippers post this gem and no one says anything.  If I'd have said that you know someone would have been on me with the CC:R trademarked "Of course if it goes against your way's you'll throw it out without even considering it."

(Which by the way, what religion wouldn't dismiss a belief that was trying to disprove it.  Is that where science beats religion?  When something goes against a rule/law/principle you can just call it an exception?)


Then MISTER HEATH (aka THE LAW) with a beautiful,

I'd quote it again but I believe I'd get in trouble.  It wasn't hard to guess what the response to this would be. 

While I now believe he's THE LAW, I don't believe he makes the rules about God.  God does.  Another "trash it if it goes against your belief"  This WEAK statement can easily be redirected at you so it's worthless. (not saying that directly to Tycho, but anyone who uses it)  It's almost like a chebacca defense.



I believe all three of those groups are suffering right now.  Just wanted to say that.



Well, if my assumption is wrong then I won't find out til it's to late.  But if it's right then it will be AWESOME!  I'll take those chances.



I have a question then for you Tycho.  Just recently while waiting for my car to get serviced I noticed a magazine which on the cover had a car (I believe it was Lexus) being described as Satanic.  Do you believe it is deception to take a word, which by definition means something very bad, and try and use it in a good way?  Or are you a science man who believes now that it's been used like this we should add an exception to the definition?



If you can show me proof that a Jesus was a regular person then I wouldn't believe he walked on water.

who made up the rules isn't the point. the point is that when you are able to assert any axiom after the fact to defend your belief then that belief is, by definition, impossible to disprove.
To demonstrate, pick any statement- make it as riduculous and hypothetically imposible to defend by any reasonable person and if the moderators are willing to devote a thread to it I will defend it by creating new axioms to explain away any inconsistancies.

In reply to silveroak (msg #162):

Ok, let me try.

God by definition implies that if there was such a character He would be capable of ANYTHING.

Tossing me an easy one? okay, I can defend that. Or would someone like to try something more challenging?

I think silveroak's position is this:

You have a belief already. You can't expect anyone else to accept that belief on face value, nor are you willing to accept their beliefs. So in the end, when no one will agree on the unseen worlds of heaven or gods, if we wish to actually discuss and debate, we need to settle on the things we all do accept, namely, consensual reality. One of the best bodies of knowledge on this common reality is science, which is ground in evidence and testability, and the pre-existing assumptions it relies on are really pretty sound (for instance, 'we exist').

As long as we stick more or less to events and evidence that everyone can agree happened, we can make arguments which are convincing to other people who may not accept your non-evident beliefs. However, as soon as you start creating arguments to explain away or talk around evidence, as a group we can't discuss any more - it becomes a game of cowboys and indians arguing about whether the bullet hit or not. So even if you're right, if you can't support your argument with evidence and reproducible tests, your position is weak and convincing other people is important.

To a large degree, this seems to be a recurring problem - the conflict between evidence and appeals to authority. I can say "I believe X because my god told me so", and indeed, no one can convince me otherwise. But this can get to the point where it's like the man who walks in on his wife naked in bed with another man, but accepts she's faithful to him and must have been involved in some terrible clothing-related accident because accepting the evidence would damage the wife's role as an authority.

Philosophically I have a serious problem with a god who would provide an overabundance of evidence against him, and the intelligence to understand that evidence, but still expect blind loyalty. In fact, in that situation I would begin to question which character, the one saying to deny your senses and god-given abilities, or the one saying to gather information and seek understanding, is actually the devil. Not that I'm saying anyone is doing this.

I don't expect people to accept anything, but people should accept that OVER half of the worlds population believe in a one God religion.  My religion doesn't tell me to not accept science.



But over half the worlds populations accepts it in some form.  But you wanna debate religion (who you believe can't prove God exist) and science (which can't prove that God doesn't).



reality is actually different for people.  More than half the people have some form of devil in their beliefs and that is reality.





I now fully doubt your faith (I thought you were catholic).  God doesn't expect you to be loyal.  He would love for you to but expects you to sin.. because of A&E.  Life is a test you can't pass by youself.  It was originally suppost to be "an afterlife earned is worth more than an afterlife given"  but being human we couldn't even earn it.  Now the afterlife is given to us, we just have to prove we deserve it by a mortal life of suffering and trials.


 Because

But reality isn't defined by consensus. Once over half the world's population believed the world was flat. That doesn't mean it was.



You're right. To a degree we here are barking up trees. I do hope no one came here expecting that we had truly proven the existence of God (my adverts in Players Wanted nonwithstanding).



Which is why that 'consensual' bit is important. Most people believe in A devil, but no more than 30% of them can agree on which devil (or which God). There is no consensus there. What there is consensus about is the basic facts of life that all of us experience, which is beyond the issues of theology. Things which can be tested repeatedly.



That's alright. I've doubted my faith too. I may be Catholic, but I'm not closed to the possibility of my being wrong. I'm pretty sure you were trying to convince me of precisely that not too long ago - not that God is wrong, but that my understanding of God is wrong. And that's fair. I'm human and I misunderstand things. The only solution is to ask questions, through prayer, discussion, and active research.

Ya'll love that example, but you are talking about Dark Ages there.  Now we are well within the technology age and still more than half the world choose to believe in the divine.




Which God or which Devil is not the point.  The major consensus is that there is both one God and one Devil.  Religion isn't fiction, it's reality.  The consensus is good comes from God and bad from the Devil.  The consensus of this forum might not be the same, but for the world it is.

The concept of religion is a reality.  The beliefs held by religion are not reality.  Reality exists apart from people's knowledge or perceptions.  That is why consensus doesn't effect reality.  Belief and faith do not equal reality and you seem quite confused when it comes to determining the difference between the two concepts.



This from a person who argues against the science of geology by using science from the 1600s.

In reply to Tlaloc (msg #169):




I don't need a degree to see I've not done that.

In reply to AmericanNightmare (msg #170):

Nicolas Steno anyone?  You most certainly do not need a degree to read your own posts.

That is why it is important to make the assumptions specified at the beginning of an argument.


That is inaccurate.  What we are trying to prove is:  Does God exist?

The premise is that: If God does exist, then he must be omnipotent.  That is the definition of "God."

Yes, you get tied in a circle, but it's not due to a logical fallacy, but rather by trying to prove the existence of something that, by definition, could do anything to disrupt anything you later try to prove.


That's not the point really.  The point is this:  man's quest to prove an omnipotent being exists is as silly as the Tower of Babel trying to reach heaven.

The reason this is different from nihilism is by inserting God, which by definition is omnipotent and could make anything in any way possible.  Therefore, you cannot DISPROVE God.

The reason for the discussion is this:  Even though you cannot DISPROVE God, you can produce evidence demonstrating that God is more likely to exist than not (or vice versa), but it is always a matter of being in the shadow of omnipotence (i.e., the necessary assumption to even begin the proof).

Therefore, it is silly to presume you can "prove" or "disprove" God; you can only make arguments based on your current understanding of the universe.

In other words, you have to start each proof by using a caveat such as:  The following proof assumes that the universe as we understand it is static, real, and demonstrative per the laws of science (as we currently understand science).  If you don't do that and yet try to deal with proving an omnipotent being, then I don't see how that is possible.


Not really.  Your definition of science is really "science as we currently understand it."  I would not expand that definition to include science of which we are not currently able to understand, which could be an infinite amount of knowledge.  But since we cannot prove science that we do not know, we cannot say that science that we do not know can prove or disprove God.


Though that argument is flawed because sometimes benevolence means letting suffering happen to allow for free will and growth of the individual through adversity to a higher level of consciousness, understanding, and appreciation.

I also don't think "omnibenevolence" is a definable term.  Nor do I think most people believe a god that is always kind.  Rather, God is always a God of goodness and justice, not evil...

Well, it goes back to the issue of science which you do not understand now cannot be analyzed, and religion and science may actually be one and the same; the only problem is with our current restricted and flawed understanding of science.

I didn't say that.  Each of these facts relates to a religious fact.  Jesus walked on water?  Yes.  What does that demonstrate?  Faith and the power of God.  You see, that's religious.

Joseph Smith found the plates?  Yes.  Why is that important? Because it led to the translation of new scripture through the power of God.  That's worship-related.

The key of each of these, though, is not the fact asserted, but that the religion asks faith of the believer.

In other words, if the LDS church tried to prove that Joseph Smith found the plates, it would be going beyond the realm of religion (which is not necessarily bad, just not religion).  But if the religion asks you to ask the Holy Ghost for a testimony that the plates were found and are the revealed truth of God, that's a different matter.  Mormonism does the latter, not the former.

This is why religions should not be in the business of scientific proofs.  It's antithetical to their mission and purpose.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:41, Thu 03 Feb 2011.

It's niether. Fiction is something fabricated for the purpose of entertainment or deception. Reality is something directly acertained through our senses. For the record, science is not reality either.
Religion and science are paradigms, attempts at developing an explanaton for the reality we prcieve, but that does not make them reality.

No, just a means of keeping the conversation from becoming "Is too!" "Is not!" back and forth.  We have to have some common ground to discuss from.  Beliefs are fine, but if we have different beliefs and just shout them at each other, there's not much hope of any progress.  Basing the discussions on reality means we start with something we agree on, and at least have a small chance of getting somewhere.


A belief, or a line of reasoning?  If it's just a belief, then yes, most would dismiss it (which is why discussions based solely on belief tend not to get anywhere).  But if its a line of reasoning, then I'd say an honest religious would not just dismiss it.  Counter it if possible, but simply dismissing it because it doesn't match the religion's beliefs seems intellectually dishonest to me.


To a degree, yes.  If something goes against a rule/law/principle then science is willing to change(or even completely abandon) the law/rule/principle.  That option of saying "okay, looks like we were wrong" is one of science's most valuable aspects.  It allows for progression, improvement, increased knowledge, etc.  To say that that means it "beats" religion is probably going to far, but to say that's why it's more useful for discussing what's true or false about the universe is probably fair.


But if you add other assumptions/axioms/etc., then things become more complicated.  Can God lie?  Can God sin?  Can God commit an act of evil?  Perhaps so, but if He does, then he's not perfect/sinless/good/etc.  You may not be able to say that no god exists, but you could say, for example, that IF god exists, he must have properties X, Y, or Z.


So will the muslims, catholics, satanists, etc. that you feel are taking unreasonable chances.  So your reasoning can lead to pretty much any conclusion someone wants to reach.  It doesn't tell us who's right, it just a way for people to feel good about their own decision.


Was their intent to make the reader believe that car was actually, literally related to Satan?  If so, then I'd say, yes, that'd be deception (unless, I suppose, they actually believed it, in which case I'd just think they were incorrect).  If, on the other hand, they didn't actually expect people to believe it was really something to do with satan, then no, I'd say it wasn't deception.  Like I said before, it comes down to whether or not the person in question is trying to make someone believe something not true.  What were the car people trying to make you believe?  That their car literally had demonic powers, or that it was a good car that you should want to buy?  If the former, then it was deceptive, if the later, then it wasn't (or at least no more so than marketing is deceptive in general).


I think you might've missed the context in which my statement was made.  I wasn't arguing that Jesus didn't walk on water, but rather that saying he did was a religious claim made by Christianity (which I hope you'll agree it does).

I think that's a limited definition.  God (as opposed to "a god") isn't defined by one single quality.  He is also good, benevolent, loves humans, etc.  If you only look at one thing you miss out on whether the total sum of the axioms are consistent.  Yes, God could murder, rape, and pillage, lie, steal, and cheat, because, hey, he's omnipotent, right?  But if He did, then he wouldn't the God in the bible, right?  He wouldn't be a good god, a loving god, etc., right?


But if you can't disprove an omnipotent God, you can't disprove anything, because God could make anything true, even though it looks like it's false, right?  So going down that route leads to nothing being provable or falsifiable.  Is 1+1=2?  Well, an omnipotent God could be fooling us into thinking it is, when it's really not, so we can never know, right?  Might be true, but it ends all discussion unless we add in a "but a rational God wouldn't do that even if He could" or something similar.


Okay, I can agree with this.  The use of the word "proof" is probably more in the legal sense of the word here, than in the mathematical sense.  In other words, if we say we've "proved" something, we really mean "shown it to be true beyond reasonable doubt," rather than shown that it's impossible for it to be false.


I can agree with that.




This is probably our main point of disagreement.  I don't just mean "science as we currently understand it."  I'm talking about any way of using observable evidence in reality to reach a conclusion about something that's happened or not.  We may not currently be able to tell if a guy named Jesus died on the cross back in the day, then rose from the dead, and we may never have enough information to do so.  But to say definitively that we never will is to say that beyond all shadow of doubt his rising or not didn't change the universe in any way that we can observe.

Basically, if God exist, and that existence makes the universe different from what it would be if He didn't exist, then we could look at the universe for that difference and infer His existence or lack thereof from the presence or absence of that difference.  Saying that we cannot ever do so implies that there is no difference to be found between a universe with God or without.  To me, that's what "outside the realm of science" means.  It's a much stronger statement than just "science currently can't answer that question because we don't have enough information."


But an omnipotent being can do anything, as you've said many times now, so could provide free will, growth, etc. WITHOUT the need for suffering and adversity.  Or, if you say that He can't do that, then that's an example of something he can't do, and disproves the omnipotent assumption which you've stated was the central assumption of the argument.


Okay, a God that isn't always kind can fit.  Though, I many people consider causing unnecessary suffering to be evil.  And for an omnipotent being, no suffering is necessary.  Whatever purpose we might think it would serve could be provided without it by an omnipotent being (remember, he can do ANYTHING!, right?).


What it demonstrates isn't the question (at least not the question I'm asking just now).  I'm just saying whether or not it did happen at all is a question that is within the realm of science, even if we may not now, and may not ever be able to answer it.  And if we did ever answer it, that would have serious religious consequences.


But if science were to answer the question of these assert facts actually occurred, that would have big impact on the religion.  These are religious claims, and they are within the realm of science (again, even if science may not have enough information to answer them).


Doing "proofs" and making claims are different things, though.  I'm fine with the idea that religions shouldn't try to prove things (though I don't really see why not), but that's very different from saying that they don't claim things to be true, which might be possible to prove or disprove.  When religions make claims about reality, even if they just ask you to take it on faith, then science and religion are no longer in completely different realms, never to interact or make conflicting claims.

So did Mary give consent?
(If so how was she sinnless?)

I'm going to answer this question, and if you laugh over it, please don't let me know.  Thanks.

Marry wasn't sinless, the early Christians didn't consider sinless, that was a claim that came out of the middle ages *Rupert, 1936).  The idea is this, original sin was pasted down through man, men, not women. Thus, the immaculate conception, does not remove Marry's sin, it just removes the man from the equation and keeps original sin from passing on to Jesus.

Now, why do I ask you not to let me know you are laughing at this, it's based partially on an assumption and partially on experience.  Most none-Jewish and non-Christians I give this explanation to, usually laugh.  Thus, while I am not certain you shall do the same, the expectation is there.  Its a bit insulting and it's a bit annoying, but I try and take it in stride.  Just as I don't laugh when others argue over color.

No, given the misogynistic tendancies of teh Early church that fits. The later adaptation of Mary however, that's a bit more problematic... as would be expected when a misogynistic religion tries to coopt imagery related to the sacredness of the feminine...

Please provide proof that a religion that improves the lot of women by leaps and bounds over any other religion "Without dominating the men" is a mysognistic religion.

How did the *early* church improve the lot of women by leaps and bounds? The later church you might have an argument- might, but early church?

An actual Jewish prayer in Jesus'es time ,"I thank God I am not a dog, a Gentile or a woman."

In Christianity, women are included as equal with men, because in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, circumsized or uncircumsized (I think it says that) male or female, etcetera. (Been a while since I've read that verse) indicating that people should not discriminate based on gender.

This was revolutionary during that time.

Yes it was.  Documents taken of the early church indicate that this was followed as well, during worship class and other such distinctions were removed.  The problem cropped however, when the Christian faith was recognized by the Romans, the problem remained, not in all cases, but in a significant proportion to around the middle of the dark ages, it's then that the sanctification of Marry, not the best word, but my mind fails me, started.  This is when she was said to be sinless, etc.

from http://www.seesharppress.com/2...s.html#numbersixteen

While some of these comments are taken out of context, a common occurrence with verses, they largely meet the mark.  There were however, a number of highly energetic church members during the period, which tried valiantly to keep the church from taking this route; the  writings of Ansaum,  Father Riggio, Father Patrick, Father Montinzo, Father Dinzinanolo, and Bishop William II.  Just to provide a balanced argument, these fine souls continued the concept of classless and sexless distinctions and were proud proponents of the convent system as a form of female education.  Father Dinzinanolo's arguments on the subject are most interesting, as he is one of the theologians that has dealt with the proper context of the context of wife’s being responsible to their husbands, and husbands unto their wives, in the whole concept of husbands being as Christ before the church was their wife.  A concept largely, and most unfortunately, ignored by the church throughout history.  While some of these comments are taken out of context, a common occurrence with verses, they largely meet the mark.  There were however, a number of highly energetic church members during the period, which tried valiantly to keep the church from taking this route; the  writings of Ansaum,  Father Riggio, Father Patrick, Father Montinzo, Father Dinzinanolo, and Bishop William II.  Just to provide a balanced argument, these fine souls continued the concept of classless and sexless distinctions and were proud proponents of the convent system as a form of female education.  Father Dinzinanolo's arguments on the subject are most interesting, as he is one of the theologians that has dealt with the proper context of the context of wife’s being responsible to their husbands, and husbands unto their wives, in the whole concept of husbands being as Christ before the church was their wife.  A concept largely, and most unfortunately, ignored by the church throughout history.

In my Bible it says that husbands and wives submit to eachother. Not just that wives should submit to the husbands.

Sure it says they should submit to each other. In one verse. In another it states that women are unworthy to be priests. Sometimes men and women are seen as almost equal in the best of cases. Certainly not on the average or through the majority of the text. Which is what matters, not that somewhere in there it suggests the possibility of equality in some things, while it in fact also makes it explicit that they are not equal even in those areas elsewhere in the same book.

It's true women are not equal to men.

Just as men are not equal to women.

Women are infinitely better at being women than men are, and vice versa.

Men can only be preists because Preisthood is based on the masculine gender.

Women can be Prophets, which is even more prized than Preisthood, so what's the problem?

Biblically more men thatn women were prophets.


and at the same time those 'mysoginistic' Romans for whom all blame is attempted to be laid had priestesses as well as priests. As did the egyptians, the Norse, the Celts (though there was a strong distinction and second class status for them compared to the male druids), and the majority of aniceint cultures.

Essentially this is the same as saying women are second class citizens in the eye of God, or at least in the eyes of the church.

No it isn't. :shrug:

That is certainly how most people I know would take the meaning of that statement.
Including some women who are christian ministers.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:22, Sun 06 Feb 2011.

In reply to silveroak (msg #190):

The Kingdom of God isn't an affirmitive action organization.

God chooses those who he wants for different reasons. I don't necessarily know what those reasons are, but I'll say this. .

The parable of the Widow's Mite used a woman. Such an important parable proves the worth of women in my eyes.

Billions of women dienfranchised but a story makes it all okay.
In your view.
But understand that there is certainly evidence that plenty of people feel that early christianity was quite mysoginistic. Some even believe it is today.

Many of the early Church came out of mysognistic societies. Individual change of each one of those individuals had to come about slowly. When Jesus saves, he might change someone into a different kind of person, but he doesn't turn a person, such as Hitler, into Mother Theresa in a matter of days. A change could take place, but it would take along time.

How does that statement relate to what I have been arguing?

It has to do with your statement about the Early Churche'es practices. Yes. . .They may have practiced mysoginy. But that doesn't mean that mysoginy comes anyway from the Bible.

No, mysogynistic verses in the bible suggest that mysogyny comes from the bible. But aside from that you seem to now be arguing a point I did not make.

I may have misread something you said, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to put words in your mouth. :)

But no. The Bible has no mysoginiy. However the Hell you spell it.

So what's your point, you don't understand the Bible?
/soft soft sarcasm so as not to offend

I read it cover to cover when  was 12, and yes I do understand it, I just find your description of it ludicrous- claiming there is no misogyny in the bible suggests eitehr you have no real familiarity with teh text or that you have no comprehension of teh word mysogyny. From the very begining woman was formed to be servile to man, an attachment at his side, made from his rib. She is ordered to be submissive, is to be sold to her first husband and must prove her virginity on their wedding night, or the husband can reclaim the bride price.

and if you think that was non offensive that was a major fail.

Maybe I found false accusations of mysoginy in the Bible to offensive in the first place.

Moderator post:
Just for the record, making claims/taking a position about religion/holy books/etc., that others may find offensive is allowed here (though do try to be as polite as possible when discussing it), as its hard to avoid such a thing in discussions such as these.

Saying something offensive about another poster, however, is not within the rules.

So to be clear, just because someone says something about your religion/holy book/etc. that you find offensive, that doesn't mean you're allowed to say something about them that you intend to be offensive.

I don't think anyone's stepped over the line here, but I wanted to clear that up based on Kathulos' last comment.  He might not have liked what silveroak said, but that doesn't mean Kathulos is allowed to insult silveroak.

Remember: We're here to talk about ideas, not about each other.

Eh, I didn't mean to insult silveroak. I suppose sarcasm isn't supposed to be within sight of anyone's conversation.

The quotes above are from teh bible. The quotes above are mysogynistic. ergo there is mysogyny in the bible.

As I said, I don't think anyone stepped over the line, so I'm not dishing out any slaps on the wrist.  Your previous post just sort of jumped out at me as saying "you offended me, so it's okay for me to offend you" which, depending on how you go about the offending, isn't actually okay here.

A bit of sarcasm is okay (though it needs to be used cautiously and in moderation).  I just wanted to make sure no one got the impression that it was okay here to say "your view offends me, so I'm within the rules to say offensive things about you."

They are mysogynistic to you. However, they could be easily mistaken as mysogynistic when they aren't because they came from mysogynistic times. At the well in Samaria, as he was talking to the woman, it was suggested that he was using racist language to convey un-racist ideas in the days when racism thrived.

The words are mysogynistic.
When Mark Twain describes huckleberry Finn haveing racist ideas, those ideas *are* racist. They are a product of the times, and Mark twain may not have been (and by all acoounts wasn't) racist, but that is not the same as saying that his books did not contain racist ideas or quotes.
Now as it happens I disagree with your conclusion as well, given that the other cultures surrounding Judeo/christian cultures were demonstrably *less* mysogynistic, but to say the bible contains no mysogynistic statments is demonstrably false. They aren't mysogynistic "to me" because I fail to comprehend the text any more that the KKK setting fire to a cross on a black man's lawn is not racist because we fail to comprhend the statment they are really making in within a racist southern society.

In reply to silveroak (msg #207):

Genesis 15:9 8
Lot was clearly a dickhead. Even pastors say so.



1 Corinthians 11:5:
And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just
as though her head were shaved

This is ritualistic.

What else could have been misunderstood by you when you quoted scripture like that?

Lot was the one good man, and offering up his daughters in place of strangers was the act which defined him as such.
besides which, as I said even if the text did not agree with Lot's attitude 9which it clearly does) that is  afar cry from saying that attitude is not included in the text.

So it's ritualistic, why does it only apply to women?

And how do you even begin to explain Timothy as anything but Mysogynistic?
This message was last edited by the player at 22:06, Sun 06 Feb 2011.

I'm not sure about Timothy, but I stand by my original interperatations of Genesis and Corinthians.

Lot may have been a "good man" but he nonetheless committed an extreme sin when he stupidly did that.

King David, for instance, was a murderer. The Bible clearly condemns him for that, although he repented later.

So the Bible may have said Lot was righteous, but he was clearly a dickhead in that one act of offering his daughter over to the rapists.

The difference is the angels went in to see if there were enough good men in Sodom, and Lot was judged to be a good man *because* he offered up his daughters to keep his guests safe from intercourse. Now while this certainly fits with ancient models of the importance of hospitality, it is also certainly misogynistic.

and even with your understanding of cointhians it is *still* mysogynistic- so it is a  ritual understanding, but it applies to women and not men and that's just that? Yes, that is my understanding as well- women had additional ritual requirement because they were considered inferior beings under Judeao-christian law and therefore held to different standards.

In reply to silveroak (msg #211):

Prove that the Bible says that Lot was judged righteous BECAUSE he offered his daughter.

I'm going to disagree completely with Kathulos.

Yes, there is mysogyny in the bible. Some of it is actually institutionalized mysogyny as well. There is also a lot of very destructive behavior which is mandated by God as the law.

However, the Bible is a letter written to the people of the time. It doesn't prescribe perfect behavior (or perfect knowledge). It prescribes the knowledge and behavior required of the time. For example, the Bible says eye for an eye - seek petty revenge. This is terrible advice. As the saying goes, 'eye for an eye leaves the world blind'. But it is a true improvement over the previous law, two eyes for an eye, which was the cultural norm. The new law was merciful, but could still be accepted. Jesus created a new law - turn the other cheek. This is a great improvement. But why didn't God tell us this from the getgo?

Clearly, God is releasing information in stages, as we are ready to digest it. Before the basic law, codified, 'just'. Then a more difficult one, based on abstract concepts like love and far more merciful. We're getting better.

Just as the relations with humans in general are getting more fair and more difficult, so should the relations with women in particular. This is normal. It shouldn't be shunned, it's a natural progression. Attacking mysogyny in the bible is like claiming we're a stupid species based on our forebears spending hundreds of thousands of years sitting in trees picking their noses. Well - that may be true - but the situation is changing. We're pushing the envelope.

It dies not state it directly but it is certainly the implication of the text.

If you're going to state that the implication is there, without saying that it says so directly, then I'm going to say that this debate can't go anywhere.

The two men/angels went to town to see if there were any good men. Lot takes them in and protects them, offering up his two daughters to the crowd in their place. In response the two men/angels pull him in the house, protect him, and tell him to get his familly out of town before it is destroyed. No admonition or indication he went to far, just a pat on the head, save the familly 'that a boy' response.
But if you feel that literary implications are beyond discusion... Well I wouldn't have gotten far in college with that approach.

The bible does specifically describe Lot as "just". He does also indeed offer his two daughters, specified as virgins, for the mob to 'do as they please' with them.

However, Sodom and Gommorah is one of the strangest passages in the old testament. We don't know why the men are after the angel. We don't know if Lot seriously expected the mob to take the daughters. Maybe Lot recognized the angel as an angel and figured giving up his daughters in service to God is alright, the same way as Abraham thinking killing Isaac is okay if that's what God asks. But frankly, as a reader, I don't know enough to make heads or tails of it, and I don't see any scholars to offer a definitive explanation for it either. The story is too contradictory for the surface reading to make sense, though.

Not really. the two angels are offered up as the archetypal 'mysterious strangers' and appear to be human when they arrive at the city. As well it is stated explicitely that the men of the city wanted to have sex with them, and the entire story is written in the form found throughout multiple mythologies where a mysterious tranger is treated with kindness then rewarded for their generosity- except in this version the hospitality goes as far as offering up their own daughters (who incidently were not decribed as virgins, only that they hadn't had sex *with a man*) to be raped in order to protect the strangers, and the reward is not being killed. a rather brutal prtrayal of the divine compared to other cultures.

I don't mean to be offensive, but I think you are too biased, Silver Oak.

The Angels did what they came to Lot's house to do.

How do we know the Angels themselves liked what he did? In the military, I mean, you do what you are told to do, even if you don't like it.

As a close mythic parallel: http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/...Favour.html#Philemon

it is about pointing out expectations of hospitality.

also prior to the angels going it was stated they would go and look for good men in Sodom and Gomorrah.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:54, Mon 07 Feb 2011.

I'd have to side with silveroak on this one.  If anything, it seems like you're the one being biased here, Kathulos, in that you seem to be assuming that the angles must not have liked it, because if they did then the bible would have an incident of misogyny in it.  You haven't offered any evidence that the angles in the story (or God) disapproved of Lot's actions.  Silveroak has, and the basic reading of the story does seem to imply that Lot was in the right for protecting the strangers (at the potential expense of his daughters).  There doesn't seem to be anything in the text to tell the reader that this action was wrong, and what is in the text could easily be interpreted as implying that it was right.  It seems that because you feel act was wrong (and we seem to agree that far), that the bible must also portray it as wrong.  But again, that doesn't seem to be what the text says or implies.  I think to make your case you need to show something in the story that indicates that what Lot did was viewed as wrong by the author.

I suspect there is additional material that should be read along with this story. Anyone care to dive into the Talmud?

Careful. That is true enough by modern definition, but you are analyzing a value system based on your own modern values, which only makes sense if you believe your values are "better", which is quite a claim.
(To save some ink: I do believe your values ARE indeed better. But I think you're taking some very big and not self-explanatory steps here.)



Because we could not understand this. Same reason why imposing democracy on a country ravaged by tribal feuds and civil war will not work: system's too complex for the population to understand.



Exactly. Though I do not believe God reveals those concepts to us. I believe they reveal themselves as part of our deep nature at the appropriate time. Notice that this is not God speaking when he talks about turning the other cheek, but Jesus. Jesus was, very probably, an actual person, and he was a prophet, meaning a spiritually highly enlightened individual (There are a few once in a while. Plato was such a person, and Siddharta Gautama, Plotinus, Augustus of Hippo, Aristotle, Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Schelling...). Thus, he had access to a very profound understanding of humanity and showed a way through which it could progress, namely, compassion. But at the time where he taught it, it was still a very remote idea, merely something to ponder upon while trying to solve the more pressing matters. It was the lighthouse in the middle of the storm.

How we interpret the source of this intuition is another matter entirely. The Christians will tell you this inspiration is God. An Atheist may tell you it is the manifestation of a natural human potential.



Exactly. This raises very interesting issues about the legitimacy of feminism as well. Maybe those are better approached in another topic.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:51, Tue 15 Mar 2011.

Hrmm... I don't know. I feel like we can describe a behavior accurately as 'mysogynistic' even if, at the time, it was extremely liberal and kind in comparison. Yes, a dictatorship may be better than tribal feuds, but that doesn't mean it isn't autocratic.




If you're interested, I'm happy to create a thread for it (or find the old thread...)

Didn't want to start a new thread so figured I'd post it here.

When I ask 'Who created God?' I typically get the response, 'No one, God created time, so the idea of God needing to be created is faulty.'

Fair enough.

But then doesn't that exact same answer work for the creation of the Universe?  Could not the very existence of time just 'start' one day, thus kicking this whole ball of wax off?  And before that everything was in a state of non-time-ness?  If it's good enough for who created god then it must be good enough for what created the universe?

Does that even make sense?

Yes. This is a huge issue with the First Cause argument (beyond the logical fallacy that something must have a 'first cause' at all!)

This is also one of the reasons why I "Kant" stand a particular philosopher (haha!)

More seriously though, we don't understand why time exists at all, or where it comes from. The First Cause question is a good one, but the answer is, frankly, childish, and assumes a particular, simple model of the multi-verse which we have no evidence to suspect is true.

Okay so I'm not crazy then.  At least not here.  Good to know.

I wouldn't go that far! But at least you're not alone ;)

My objection to divinity is primarily along two lines.

1) It is rarely defined very clearly, and no two people agree on definitions. This kind of entity is very hard to check for and prove or disprove, if you don't put down any solid requirements.

2) The assumption that divinity is 'outside' the laws of physics. I don't object to the possibility of lifeforms that have developed capabilities that might seem like magic or miracles to us. I object to the assumption that it doesn't even play by the rules of the multiverse.

-Example, even if there were a god, that did perform miracles on occasion, you should theoretically be able to track where things suddenly start acting in ways not dictated by their own properties and the physical laws of the universe. (where something else kicks in). Like say you are sick, and you pray to god to heal you, and some entity that thinks of itself as god and has the power to heal you decides to intervene. Assuming that you were placed under a sophisticated medical scanner that was able to track your disease and the cells of your body perfectly, at some point, your cells would start producing something they weren't 'supposed' to or the disease would start behaving in ways it wasn't supposed to, it's cells disintegrating without a a reason dictated by the circumstances or something.


To me, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to believe in any sort of active god. And the assumptions in the beginning of the threat seem to assume to much.

I agree with your first point. However, on the second, the problem is that we too are limited. In 1600, we had no real concept of germs, and so would not even know to look. In 1900, our concept of blood chemistry was so primitive that, again, we couldn't know to look. In 19540, we had no concept of DNA, or how genetic manipulation would influence things. Yes, if we had a god-level medical scanner we should be able to detect divine interference. But we are not even close to that level.

Would it not be, then, a natural rather than supernatural thing?  Then we would not need to use the word 'divine' to describe it.

And if it is not natural but supernatural, that is, above nature, why shouldn't it stand apart from natural law?

Just started reading 'A Universe From Nothing'  I watched the youtube video that the book is based on and it's fascinating!

I'm bringing hakootoko's thoughts over to another thread:

Interesting point. But I think I disagree. For example, there are numerous religions that have numerous documents to compare. The bible, book of morman, catholic catechism, koran, etc. Some actively do not have rules or conditions, allowing for whatever pleases them such as wicca.

So I think you could compare these written items against things such as archaeology, or known facts to see if true or not true.

While followers do not always agree, a follower doesn't actually need to be following before something is true or not true. Example, if something is true, even if someone does not follow that faith well, that doesn't make change the truth to a be untrue. Or vice versa, someone following a faith completely and perfectly does not make that faith true, if it is not true.


But the reverse of that is why assume that all things must follow natural? I think we can agree that there are more things in the universe we don't know about than we do know about. I've heard concepts that we know less than 1% of the information that exists in the universe.  That number cannot be made definitive true, but it seems reasonable that there is a lot we do not know, and cannot measure.

Remember in the other thread, where you speak of how people will look for supporting evidence, and ignore things that don't fit with their beliefs? I think you have stated two reasons for your stance that is likely not a solid reason to suggest that an active divine God does not exist.

Sure they are.

Everything which impacts the natural world can, in theory, be measured, if only by their impact on the natural world.

i.e. If a God can heal someone who would otherwise have died, it should be possible, at least in theory, to track the precise moment where his cells, or the bacteria in his body, or the chemicals that make up any of those things, suddenly start behaving differently than they ought to given all other measurable influences on their behavior.

My basic point is that I don't have to have evidence of absence. Until there is evidence of presence, the null position, which from a logical standpoint is the only reasonable point to start from, is not to assume the existence of deities until evidence comes along to suggest otherwise.

I think Kat addressed already by stating that not having the tools to measure this is not evidence that this is a reason to not accept there is God.

That does involve an assumption, right? In other words, if true, then we will see this through evidence. But if the assumption is wrong, that the logic that follows is not true. Agree, disagree?

To be sure, are you saying you don't know if there's a God, or you haven't been told evidence for God? To be sure, what would be considered evidence for God?

1. It is a reason until such tools have been invented.

2. It's an assumption only in the most basic aspect that, if something changes, we can see it change.

3. Here we come back to my original point. The problem of defining a satisfying concept of god for debate on whether or not it is real.

Ok, a theory then. An unproven theory, that requires a basic assumption to be a theory? Would that be fair or unfair to say that?

Right, I think this establishes though that it doesn't have to be true, only that if true, it's possible.

So, you don't know what you'd consider evidence for God? Uhm, how do you know if you've denied previous evidence then if you don't have any method for determining evidence?

Remember how in the other thread we discussed ideas of how we ignore evidence for positions we do not already hold? It seems like you are trying to hold a position of agnosticism.


Would you accept speaking of the future and then fulfilling it is not something a regular person could do? Would that be evidence that there is something greater than man?
This message was last edited by the player at 19:49, Sun 12 Aug 2012.

1. Depends on what we're trying to do really.

2. No, I'm really going to stick by the assumption that if things suddenly start behaving other than how their basic properties and their environment would make them, that is something we should be able to measure, at least in theory. Like if a room's temperature starts increasing without a source of heat from where the heat can come.

3. I'll agree that this is where things get a bit murky, but not terribly so. We're really answering a whole slew of different questions.

The bottom line is though, that as far as I'm concerned, I've not seen any evidence of any interference by anything greater than human. Not an omnipotent god, not an olympian style powerful-but-not-omnipotent god, not an olympian style demigod or a DC-comics style Superman. Not ghost, not even a human with an extra sense.

I'm not ruling out possibility of the existence of any of the above, they could, in theory, exist. But until such a time as their existence is proven, they remain 'unlikely' hypotheticals.

"Unlikely? Why would you hold that position? That position would be based on lack of evidence for an "unlikely scenario", right?

Would you consider knowing the future before it occurs as a sign that there is something greater than man? Or would you consider that men can know the future with accuracy?

It looks like you're not denying God, only denying that there is evidence for God. Was I right is saying that's an agnostic view?
This message was last edited by the player at 20:31, Sun 12 Aug 2012.

It's an agnostic view, yes. By the very definition, an omnipotent God could create a universe that seemed, in every way, as if there wasn't a god in it.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. (don't believe in God, and don't believe it's the sort of question that we can answer definitively, at least not at our present level of understanding.)

My biggest gripe with the usual agnosticism stance is that they seem to think that it follows that just because the question can't be answered definitively, therefore it's a 50/50 split. It isn't, in my view. The existance of God, while possible, is extremely unlikely, to the point where I feel that I can confidently dismiss it until evidence to the contrary is submitted.

Would you consider knowing the future before it occurs as a sign that there is something greater than man? Or would you consider that men can know the future with accuracy?

An interesting view agnostic athiest. I find athiesm is a difficult position to hold. Essentially it takes faith to believe in something that does not have evidence for it.

Why do you deny God exists?

Firstly, atheism, not athiesm. It is to theism as agnostic is to gnostic or amoral to moral (linguistically speaking at least)

And I don't find it a difficult position to hold at all.

I deny god, because the existence of one is a fantastic claim, presented without fantastic evidence. Hence, it is not up to me to disprove it, but the ones presenting it to prove it. Burden of proof and all that.

So, it doesn't take faith. Just lack of belief.

It might require such if I were a gnostic atheist, cause then I would be claiming knowledge that I can't have.

Knowledge of the future? It would depend on how precise said knowledge was, of course. Men can predict elements of the future with great accuracy, or make vague statements that are bound to come true in some form at some point. "A great leader will arise and lead the nation to war", how could that not come true at some point?

Greater than man? Hard to say again.

I stand corrected.

Hmmmm. I get that reasoning to say that means you can't know something as true. But the logic doesn't follow that lack of knowledge means can't exist. Lack of evidence doesn't mean false, it means not proven. agree/disagree?



If you believe something is true without evidence, you call it .....?

A simple true false question to expand the idea.
I do not believe God exists. You may have a reason, and call it lack of belief. But lack of belief is the same as do not believe.

Example, do cats exist? Sure, they do. But if you had no evidence either way, do cats exist or not exist yet regardless? At this point, even with lack of evidence, the cats exist, or do not exist. You could say I do not believe they exist, you could even say they don't exist, but without evidence, that's a belief, not a lack of belief. If you say cats do not exist, because I lack evidence, that's really just a belief, not a lack of belief.

Agree/disagree?

This is new to me. Gnostic atheist, and Agnostic atheist.
I'm reading you mean one is based on belief, and the other lack of belief? Is that right? Why?

I'm trying to get something that you would say, yes this acts as evidence.

Let's try this, what would be evidence that a cat exists?

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg # 242):

And you too Trust in the Lord were an atheist when you were born.

That is to say you were in not in the set of all things which have an active belief in a deity.

And you're also, if a monotheist, you have an active affirmative disbelief in all other gods.

By nature you have a much more untenable position.

Gnosticism refers to the idea of whether the existance of god can be known for a fact.

Gnostic Theist: "It is possible to know God exists for a fact, and I know that he does."
Gnostic Atheist: "It is possible to know for a fact whether God exists, and I know that he doesn't."

Agnostic Theist: "It is impossible to know for a fact whether or not God exists, but I believe that he does."

Agnostic Atheist: "It is impossible to know for a fact whether or not God exists, but I don't believe that he does."


Anyway, I find that you're trying to shoehorn my statements into boxes you have an easier time dealing with.

I agree that lack of knowledge doesn't mean that it can't exist, but I don't take that to give any special power to the statement that it does exist. The possibility exists that there is a god. I just don't see any reason to believe so until shown otherwise. Everything I know about the world tells me that it works perfectly fine without introducing the idea of a deity. That doesn't mean there CAN'T be one, but like I've said, I have no trouble assuming that there isn't until proven wrong.

While I know that cats exist, because I have seen them, I would face just the same difficulty convincing someone who came from somewhere where there had never been any. I could show them a photograph, but it could be a fake, I could show them a real live cat.

In the end, cats are different from gods in that their existence is a material claim that can be proven or disproven.

At the very least, you can define the subspecies of four legged mammals that would count as 'cat' and then scour the globe until you either found one, or confirmed that nowhere on Earth there were there any cats.

In essence, the difference is provability. Once someone has stated that there are cats, it's possible to test that theory. Not so with gods.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:18, Sun 12 Aug 2012.

I would call myself an Agnostic Theist - a term I had not heard before.  Interesting!

In reply to AtomicGamer (msg # 246):

The Atomic Gamer is very much correct.

The two classifications create a quadrant.

There is the question of Gnosis - Knowledge
and the set of things that have a belief in god and those that do not.

I too am an agnostic-atheist, but my agnosticism doesn't at all trouble me. I also see no particular value in "trying to know" .. and I"m even a hard agnostic, I'm not sure it can be know ...at least by some definitions of god.

Ahh, by that view, a chair is an atheist too. Seems kind of a non statement. It suggests atheist is a non choice.


I get that's the way you want to use it, but it is a bit confusing since going to the dictionary, you get a different definition.



I suppose a moot point if the word is explained though.



Fundamentally I agree that I have an active affirmative disbelief in all other gods, however, I do think following your logic, if true, that would only make me an atheist towards multiple gods. In other words, if your logic is correct, I don't see how it's more untenable position that atheist for God.

Could you explain why atheism is more solid for multiple gods than one God? Did I understand your concept correctly?