A mortal God?

[Atothetheist]

I believe you are assuming something here.

Do you agree that there things that could be factually true, yet not subject to "test and observation"?

I certainly do.

Is it possible that there exists other universes, entirely cut off from ours such that no information could possibly flow between those universes and ours? I believe the answer is "yes".

So this would be an example of a factual truth that is simply not subject to scientific investigation (I believe).

And I am confident of other examples. The bottom line is that one cannot rule out the truth of some hypothesis which has no scientific evidence to support it, if a reasonable case can be made that the nature of the claim itself prevents scientific investigation.

Another example: When someone kicks me in the shin, I experience a sharp, very real sensation of pain. However, science cannot make the case that I have this experience. Yes, science can show that when I am kicked in the shins, certain neurons are activated, and I engage in certain behaviours.

But, and this is the point - the nature of my internal experience of pain is such it is simply not accessible to anyone else to me, and therefore not really subject to scientific investigation (with its notions of testability, objective evidence, etc.)

But, I suggest, that the pain is still "real".

Yes, it is possible, but that doesn't mean it is.

There might be no evidence for previous universes, or anything... But that doesn't mean it happened, or is likely.

Could it be possible that in that past universe, there were unicorns?

Here is the problem, Drew. God is supposed to be working IN THIS UNIVERSE.

Miracles are evidence of him, and subject to scientific evaluation.

There are many things that can't be scientifically tested ( Russel's teapot) at the time, but that doesn't mean it is likely that there is a teapot floating in space.

If God intervenes in the universe, like making a shroud, or maybe even a giant hand, or even levitation, and it could be scientifically tested, God is in the realm of science.

And lo and behold, people claim Miracles. Therefore, there God can be tested scientifically, it's existance can be scientifically proven.

And to Steve Bolts:

It was plainly obvious from your post you know nothing about the evidence for both, if you just call them assumptions.

 

[WIP]

Miracles are evidence of him, and subject to scientific evaluation.

I believe the fact that we and everything in the universe exist at all is evidence and proof of God. Just what I believe.

 

[Atothetheist]

I believe the fact that we and everything in the universe exist at all is evidence and proof of God. Just what I believe.

Obviously we think differently.

 

[AlexBC]

Been away a day or two. I voiced my thoughts to a few people in my social circle and a lot of support AND criticism.

One question i've been asked a couple of times is how can I have hope if I reject my faith.

Good question.

Here goes. Apologies for being OTT.

The thought that simple life arose and thrived on this planet, in a universe that mostly wants to kill it, gives me hope. That it continued to thrive and adapt gives me hope.

Our species found itself alone in a cold, indifferent universe but found comfort in each other. We found new ways of killing each other but we found other ways of living together and helping each other. That gives me hope.

I find more comfort in our species rags to riches story than just being handed everything on a silver platter.


Human beings are amazing. It's doing us a disservice to credit all of our acievements to a creator. It's a slap in the face to generations upon generations of our ancestors who struggled against everything so we can be here today.

That struggle gives me hope. I am so grateful to them.

That gives me hope.

 

[evenifigoalone]

For me, all of the evil is the world makes me despair for humanity. So much death, hate...people willing to stand by and let bad things happen in the name of tolerance...I just can't see it all being fixed by humans...not ultimately. Maybe temporarily.


Amazing how we can all see the same things and yet come to such different conclusions.

 

[AlexBC]

For me, all of the evil is the world makes me despair for humanity. So much death, hate...people willing to stand by and let bad things happen in the name of tolerance...I just can't see it all being fixed by humans...not ultimately. Maybe temporarily.


Amazing how we can all see the same things and yet come to such different conclusions.

It's all about scale. Two children fighting or two nations trying to exterminate each other. If a peace is brokered then at what point is god required to broker that peace?

If an ultimate accord amongst all the people of the world is possible then what is that ultimate authority waiting for.

Confrontation is in our nature. I think those brief periods of peace are made all the more precious.

 

[evenifigoalone]

There is more to it than that.
A lot of times a peace treaty isn't even about two nations resolving their differences in good will. A lot of times they still have hard feelings. Supposing one or neither nation isn't really planning on honoring that treaty? Suppose a new leadership tears that treaty down?

There are people in the world who want to make it better and who want to help. I'm afraid, though, that the majority of humanity does not have everyone's best interest in mind.
Even the "old days" we celebrate, such as part from our history where good has prevailed, not everything was all peachy-keen back then, either. They had some pretty big problems that are not talked about as much nowadays.


With the invention of nuclear warfare is another danger...all it would take is for one nation to fire one off, then all of the others would fire off in retaliation...and we'd all be destroyed.
Of course, having my own beliefs about some things that are going to happen in the future, I don't believe that that will happen. But it is possible for it to happen.

 

[Mike]

Personal expierence is highly HIGHLY overrated. People mistake things all of the time.

You are right though, he hasn't... To me. He probably won't... To me. And I am sorry, but any system which relies heavily in personal expierence, is a fishy system to me.

Personal, or anecdotal evidence.... Is just that, personal. They are not going to convince anybody but the person who had the expierence.

..... One might be aquainted with those subjects, but I highly doubt, if this person were to master all of them, he would be a believer.

90% of scientists, reject the God hypothesis completely, or doubt it. ( some are agnostic.)

The people who should be able to see him working, creating miracles, or setting up the laws, reject him as a hypothesis.

I do not speak objectively, I am not arrogant enough to. Nor will I ever say we will not find evidence for a God, and unlikely still, evidence it is of you Particular Deity.

I do not have information that is denied to you, and I won't claim to.

I don't understand this response, because it wasn't my argument that the Christian world view is built entirely on "personal experience". My contention was that in some cases, believers behold the same "scientific" information you have and process it differently. They are using this information to draw logical conclusions in support of Christianity. Other believers are been exposed to different sets of data than you. In saying this, I wasn't referring to "personal experience". I was referring to scientific data that you are not aware of. Unless you believe you're aware of every study ever done, there are some people (even believers) who are aware of things you are ignorant of.

In this life there will be no more conclusive evidence against God than there will be evidence for Him. Your task to prove Him false is as insurmountable as is my task to prove Him true. Thankfully, I don't feel burdened with this "task". Romans 1 talks about the evidence that all men have and how every man is without excuse for not seeing God in the details. You don't believe that, but I do, and for that purpose, I feel no need to convince you of something that you are unwilling to acknowledge.

I don't feel it, and it isn't my duty, anyway. :nod

 

[Drew]

Science is competitive. It isn't a tribe, it is an all men for themselves type of deal. If one person proposes something, the other scientists will try their hardest to disprove it.

I agree that scientists try to disprove each other. But that is not relevant to my point. I suggest scientists, as a whole, still see themselves as a "tribe". Everybody does this. Republicans view Democrats as a hostile "tribe", and vice versa. And so on.

The point is not about what happens "inside the tribe" - in this case the motivation of one scientist to disprove the findings of another. The point is that scientists as a group arguably buy uncritically into a general proposition that "religious people" are members of a different tribe - the scientists religious people as a "threat" to their way of getting knowledge about the world. And religious people view scientists the same way.

You are making drastic assumptions.

I see no case for this critique. I have presented a very high level plausibility argument as to why we should be careful in interpreting this "90 % of scientists reject God" assertion (granting that this figure may indeed be accurate).

Your objection about scientists are motivated to critique each other's work really is not relevant. What matters is the degree to which scientists as a whole view are "fair" in their assessment of ideas that fall outside the domain of scientific inquiry.

 

[WIP]

Obviously we think differently.

You do have that correct.

 

[Drew]

I find more comfort in our species rags to riches story than just being handed everything on a silver platter.

I know I am reading a lot "between the lines" here, but I sense that somehow you have been given a "story" about Christianity that is not, in my view, correct.

I suggest the Biblical position, as opposed to the one you see in "pop Christian culture", is this: God decided from the foundations of the world to place man in charge of running the universe. On this view, we have hardly been "given everything on a silver platter" and are expeceted to sit on our thumbs and let God "do his thing".

The Biblical model of the world entails man being involved in just as much struggle, noble effort, and achievement as any alternative.

 

[AlexBC]

I know I am reading a lot "between the lines" here, but I sense that somehow you have been given a "story" about Christianity that is not, in my view, correct.

I suggest the Biblical position, as opposed to the one you see in "pop Christian culture", is this: God decided from the foundations of the world to place man in charge of running the universe. On this view, we have hardly been "given everything on a silver platter" and are expeceted to sit on our thumbs and let God "do his thing".

The Biblical model of the world entails man being involved in just as much struggle, noble effort, and achievement as any alternative.

When I say "silver platter" I meant more our existence and the basic tools we are born with

 

[Drew]

There might be no evidence for previous universes, or anything... But that doesn't mean it happened, or is likely.

I understand this. Let me try to unravel the confusion.

You appear to believe that I think I am making an argument for the reality of God. Well I am not, really. For now, I am simply making a case that it is at least plausible that the existence of God can be reconciled with the facts of the world.

Trust me - I understand the difference between establishing the plausibility of a certain position and the further task of making a positive case for that postion.

Could it be possible that in that past universe, there were unicorns?

I think the answer to this is clear: unicorns could exist in some other universe.

Miracles are evidence of him, and subject to scientific evaluation.

No they are not - at least on my under my understanding of science. Miracles, by their very nature, are not repeatable. If I am not mistaken, an assertion X is a "scientific" assertion, if that assertion can be tested. We can test the assertion that bodies balls at 32 feet per second per second. We cannot test the assertion that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree. Does that mean we can say such an event never took place? Of course not.

Miracles, by their nature, simply do not fall into the category of claims that can be tested. But that does not believe they cannot happen.

I suggest that there are other reasons to question the reality of miracles, but I do not think the "science" angle works.

There are many things that can't be scientifically tested ( Russel's teapot) at the time, but that doesn't mean it is likely that there is a teapot floating in space.

Again, this is dismissive and condescending. You are, whether you realize it or not, making my case for me - such statements show that you approach this matter already implicitly believing that those who believe in a transcendent God are like foolish children who believe in unicorns and floating teapots. And, therefore, you are playing into my argument about tribes. The members of a given tribe define the members of other tribes as silly and simple-minded (if not also downright evil, but that's another story)

Do you not see how this tactic is unfair - you are coming up with overly absurd examples.

 

[Atothetheist]

I understand this. Let me try to unravel the confusion.

You appear to believe that I think I am making an argument for the reality of God. Well I am not, really. For now, I am simply making a case that it is at least plausible that the existence of God can be reconciled with the facts of the world.

Trust me - I understand the difference between establishing the plausibility of a certain position and the further task of making a positive case for that postion.


I think the answer to this is clear: unicorns could exist in some other universe.


No they are not - at least on my under my understanding of science. Miracles, by their very nature, are not repeatable. If I am not mistaken, an assertion X is a "scientific" assertion, if that assertion can be tested. We can test the assertion that bodies balls at 32 feet per second per second. We cannot test the assertion that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree. Does that mean we can say such an event never took place? Of course not.

Miracles, by their nature, simply do not fall into the category of claims that can be tested. But that does not believe they cannot happen.

I suggest that there are other reasons to question the reality of miracles, but I do not think the "science" angle works.


Again, this is dismissive and condescending. You are, whether you realize it or not, making my case for me - such statements show that you approach this matter already implicitly believing that those who believe in a transcendent God are like foolish children who believe in unicorns and floating teapots. And, therefore, you are playing into my argument about tribes. The members of a given tribe define the members of other tribes as silly and simple-minded (if not also downright evil, but that's another story)

Do you not see how this tactic is unfair - you are coming up with overly absurd examples.

Nope, I was just making my statements simple.

Russel's teapot shows the problem very well.

Just beause it is plausible, it isn't likely.

Listen, by your own standards of God, your argument is already plausible. If we assume your God exists, then your hypothesis is plausible.

I am not saying that it isn't.

Miracles can be tested, as long as they are observed. When we compare them to the natural, they should stand out like a sore thumb, and there are reports of Many Miracles.... Science has tested the Shroud Of Turin, a suppossed miracle. As long as the miracle is observed, documented, and measureable, it can be tested.

(Shroud has been found to be a fake.)

 

[Drew]

Nope, I was just making my statements simple.

Russel's teapot shows the problem very well.

I think you are simply not willing to accept what is clear: to implicitly connect a belief in a "flying teapot" to a belief in God is to poison the well - to use an entirely inappropriate example to discredit your opponent before the relevant arguments even begin.

Just beause it is plausible, it isn't likely.

Incorrect (unless you made a typing error). To establish that an hypothesis is plausible has no relation whatsoever to the likelihood that the hypothesis is true.

It is plausible that I will live to 120.

It is unlikely that I will live to 120.

It is plausible that I will live to 54 (I am 53).

I is likely that I will live to 54.

So the establishment of plausibility is entirely non-committal in respect to likelihood.

 

[Atothetheist]

I think you are simply not willing to accept what is clear: to implicitly connect a belief in a "flying teapot" to a belief in God is to poison the well - to use an entirely inappropriate example to discredit your opponent before the relevant arguments even begin.


Incorrect (unless you made a typing error). To establish that an hypothesis is plausible has no relation whatsoever to the likelihood that the hypothesis is true.

It is plausible that I will live to 120.

It is unlikely that I will live to 120.

It is plausible that I will live to 54 (I am 53).

I is likely that I will live to 54.

So the establishment of plausibility is entirely non-committal in respect to likelihood.

I wasn't connecting it to a belief in God, I wasn't saying that a belief in god is worse than a flying teapot.

I was trying to demonstrate that there could be a possibility that there is a flying teapot, but that doesn't mean that it is likely.

There are some plausibilities that are likely, and some that are not. That was what I am trying to get you to understand through my posts.

 

[Drew]

I wasn't connecting it to a belief in God, I wasn't saying that a belief in god is worse than a flying teapot.

I was trying to demonstrate that there could be a possibility that there is a flying teapot, but that doesn't mean that it is likely.

There are some plausibilities that are likely, and some that are not. That was what I am trying to get you to understand through my posts.

Well, I agree with the principle, but I believe the specific use of a "flying teapot" poisons the well - it is an inappropriate example because it functions to ridicule your opponent.

I suggest that most reasonable atheists would agree that it is more likely that God exists than a flying teapot exists.

I have just committed my own error of logic in the preceding statement. Can yo tell me what it is?

 

[Atothetheist]

Well, I agree with the principle, but I believe the specific use of a "flying teapot" poisons the well - it is an inappropriate example because it functions to ridicule your opponent.

I suggest that most reasonable atheists would agree that it is more likely that God exists than a flying teapot exists.

I have just committed my own error of logic in the preceding statement. Can yo tell me what it is?

Not really. I think most would believe in a teapot in space than a supernatural being that watches over us night and day.

Are you testing me? If so, I want to know why before I answer the question.

 

[Drew]

Are you testing me? If so, I want to know why before I answer the question.

I was just engaging in a little self-deprecating humour. My point was that for me to write "most reasonable atheists would believe...." is to commit the same error I believe you are. I was implying that you would have to be "unreasonable" to believe what you believe. That is, I believe, another example of poisoning the well.

Bottom line: I would have hoped by now you that I would have convinced you that I know enough to know that establishing that something is plausible does not make it likely (or unlikely) for that matter.

 

[Atothetheist]

I was just engaging in a little self-deprecating humour. My point was that for me to write "most reasonable atheists would believe...." is to commit the same error I believe you are. I was implying that you would have to be "unreasonable" to believe what you believe. That is, I believe, another example of poisoning the well.

Bottom line: I would have hoped by now you that I would have convinced you that I know enough to know that establishing that something is plausible does not make it likely (or unlikely) for that matter.

Nah, it seemed we were on the same page, and we just weren't understanding eachother well enough.