Is God... PG Version

[HaiWayne]

to add something different to the "first cause" debate, i would say that the fact that theists cannot explain the first cause of God is not the problem with theism. A explanation does not necessarily require an explanation to be a good one. For example, "In order to explain certain quantum phenomena, scientists have posited the existence of dozens of invisible particles with very particular properties that yield predictable results. These have been some of the most successful explanations in all of scientific history, yielding the most accurate experimental results we have ever achieved. And yet we have no explanations whatsoever for the particles that we have offered as explanations for the quantum phenomena."

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6113

the source i cited goes on to explain why "god" is a poor explanation for anything, namely, there is no way to verify such a statement through testing, and highly likely to be untrue based on all other knowledge we have

That's entirely the wrong way to think about it HaiWayne. This isn't a judged debate competition. The point is to have a sincere debate about something. It's fine to say "I don't know", especially if you actually don't know.

noted

 

[ciaza]

I don't believe your source is attacking God per se but rather the God of the Gaps (which is fine.)

However with that said I could still disagree with most of your quote.

"Low plausibility". I disagree based on numerous arguments for the existence of God such as the CA, fine-tuning argument, etc.

"Not Testable". I believe Dre. covered God and the falsifiability issue. Just because something cannot be tested and proven wrong, doesn't mean it necessarily is wrong.

"Poor consistency with background knowledge". In the words of Dre. (again): "We have observed that everything that exists has a prior cause, so why shouldn't the universe?" (Or something similar to that, it's not verbatim.)

"Comes from tradition with extreme explanatory failure". I assume he means religion, and I don't know the relevancy this has. He's coming close to committing the genetic fallacy here.

"Lacks simplicity, offers no predictive novelty". Again not sure what this has to do with being right and wrong. I don't even know what he means by predictive novelty.

"poor explantory scope". He goes on to say:

Let us ask ourselves what would happen if we required that a successful explanation must itself be explained.

This would lead immediately to an infinite regress of explanations. We would need to have an explanation of the explanation, and an explanation of the explanation of the explanation, and an explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation… on into infinity. And thus, we would never be able to explain anything.

I'm quite certain the whole point of the First Cause is that it requires no prior explantion.


Anyway hi all, I'm ciaza, hailing from Australia. As aa pointed out I've been lurking for a while because of personal reasons. Anyway I look forward to posting around here.

Finally for the record despite the impression I probably gave with the above post I'm actually not a theist. Well I might be, haven't really figured out my faith yet.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

Just a question that'll make me realize something.
Do you guys have faith, or at least believe in it?

 

[ciaza]

Well we know for a fact faith exists, but I think there's a fine line between faith and ignorance. For me personally I do not have absolute faith (currently).

 

[rvkevin]

I don't believe your source is attacking God per se but rather the God of the Gaps (which is fine.)

He's attacking the use of God as an inference to the best explanation. Given a crime scene analogy, an inference to the best explanation would be whoever the prime suspect is. The list contains explanatory virtues. Fulfilling the criteria does not necessitate the truth of a claim, but they increase the probability of it being true. The corollary is that if a claim does not meet the criteria (i.e. theistic claims), then it is less likely to be true. This is why most of your remarks are irrelevant.

 

[ciaza]

Fair enough, my mistake on the God of the Gaps, but even so I still fail to see how he can claim Theism doesn't meet the explanatory virtues (apart from simplicity, I suppose.)

 

[rvkevin]

Fair enough, my mistake on the God of the Gaps, but even so I still fail to see why he claims Theism doesn't meet the explanatory virtues (apart from simplicity, I suppose.)

Here is the index: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=11595

He starts addressing the explanatory virtues on page 4.

 

[ciaza]

Thank you. I shall have myself a nice 1am read :D.

 

[Ballistics]

I feel the need to apologize for my earlier statements since I just read this book called "The Light of Love" by Patricia Devlin, a blind lady who for four years had conversations with her Guardian Angel and Jesus and Mary. This lady is either a lying betch or Jesus and Angels really do exist, and that scares the crap out of me. She's not crazy, shes got her PHD in family relations, so I am not so willing to dismiss her accounts as hogwash. I only read the book because my grandparents who gave me the book were coming into town to visit. I have to admit that I went to church the past couple days and started praying the rosary again I am so scared (The Heavenly Host is not too happy about the state of the world currently and are imploring our help in prayers). No this is not a troll and neither were my earlier statements, I am still at heart an atheist. This is also very inconvenient because if this book is real I can't continue to live my life the way that I do which really irks me. This is quite embarrassing! Sorry Dre, for being a douche and sorry gw, for currently straying from the path of reason.

Nicholas from these supposed first hand accounts of talking to Jesus and angels, I have to agree that God exists outside of time, which is exactly what the angel said. Also it was very clear that Jesus does everything in his power to help us get into heaven. He also knows everything and is all powerful, however he limits his power in order to preserve our free will, which is SO important to him. Above all else, he says that free will must be maintained. Even the angels had free will, and 1/3 of them chose to side with Lucifer, however once the battle was over, God asked all the remaining angels give up their ability to rebel because he didn't want them to harm us- he loves us that much! Also, it was made clear that God could destroy Lucifer at any time, however he still loves Lucifer dearly, he who used to be God's favorite angel, and still believes that Lucifer will change his ways. This is a constant struggle for God.

There is one instance where the author is asked to pray for a woman who suffered all of her life, was dealt all the worst hands, and who experienced no emotion. Jesus was not able to save her because she had absolutely no love in her life. When the author and her family pray for her, the woman is dying, and she is permitted as she dies to see them praying for her. At this realization, she exhibits surprise, not gratitude or love. But because of that one emotion, Jesus is able to place her in purgatory and spare her from Hell.

To answer your question about innocents dying at birth or an early age, Nicholas, the Guardian Angel says these are the most treasured souls in heaven, because they are totally pure and given special Guardian angels among the cherubims and seraphims.

This book emphasized for me how LOVING God is, but at the same time how constrained he is because he respects our decisions. Even if you don't believe in God or Jesus I recommend reading this book because the accounts are really cool and the angels are amazingly complex and human like. Plus when she asks them their names they reply that they are intranscribable, however the rough translation is "GENTLE WISDOM OF GOD" for one of them, or Pope John Paul II's G.A.'s name was "FORTRESS OF THE LORD." LoL if anything that is pretty badarse.

I plan to contact this author and ask her to ask some questions to her angel to verify her story because if she's lying I will kill her! This is mad inconvenient for me.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

@Ballistics Taking aside that you're still at heart an atheist... But now that you're in this way you mentioned, read The new testament on the Bible. It's gonna take you some time, but it worth the reading.

 

[Ballistics]

I've read a good majority of the Bible I just really didn't take it seriously before, I was raised catholic so I know the ropes, its very easy to discount a very old text as something of the past. But (assuming this woman is telling the truth) having a first hand account of some very serious claims is something different in my opinion.

 

[GwJ]

@Ballistics Taking aside that you're still at heart an atheist... But now that you're in this way you mentioned, read The new testament on the Bible. It's gonna take you some time, but it worth the reading.

You can't be a theist but at heart an atheist. You're one or the other.

Good for you Ballistics, if that's what'll make you happy, that's good.

 

[Ballistics]

You can't be a theist but at heart an atheist. You're one or the other.

Good for you Ballistics, if that's what'll make you happy, that's good.

I think its the other way around, I'm pretty sure I'd be happier with a life of self indulgence. =) But who knows maybe the opium of believing in an afterlife will make all that pain go away!

 

[1048576]

Similarily, the claim that there are no rational arguments for unicorns needs to be explained, you can't just say it and expect the BoP to be on the opposition.

God is also completely different from a unicorn.


Also, I don't believe in gravity, so now it's your job to prove it exists, otherwise I'm automatically right.

Please tell me that you understand why we have evidence for gravity and not God. I've explained it a billion times. Gravity is falsifiable.

 

[Dre89]

It's irrelevant what evidence we have for gravity. The point is, by your logic, if I make a claim, the BoP is on you to disprove it, otherwise I'm automatically right.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

that's how the scientific process works Dre

we gather evidence

we form models based on available evidence

eventually, as more and more evidence is gathered, models are either modified or thrown out entirely to incorporate the new evidence

the model(s) which undergo the most experiments and are able to account for all the observable evidence are eventually accepted

only after this rigorous process of testing and selection does the BoP fall to the disprover

That's why if you wanted to disprove our current model of gravity, you'd have to provide your own evidence which goes against our theory.


The difference between God and gravity is that one is supported by centuries of rigorous scientific study and testing and backed with repeatable experiments which provide evidence for its existence in our current model.

That's why the BoP has not shifted from the claim-maker to the disprover.

 

[jaswa]

Since science is so powerful in telling us things about the world and you guys know so much about it, would you mind explaining how gravity functions on 3 bodies in motion? I only know how it works for 2.

 

[ballin4life]

That has nothing to do with the process of science ... it's just an unsolved mathematical problem.

That's like saying "OMG you can't prove the Riemann Hypothesis ... looks like cryptography is worthless"

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Pretty much. Gigantic strawman.

 

[Dre89]

I think his point was that science is not omnipotent, so the position against current science shouldn't automatically and exclusively have the BoP.

 

[jaswa]

Yep pretty much.

Btw this thread is meant to be about God, so unless you can disprove God with science, make another thread about it.

 

[ballin4life]

I think his point was that science is not omnipotent, so the position against current science shouldn't automatically and exclusively have the BoP.

Yep pretty much.

Btw this thread is meant to be about God, so unless you can disprove God with science, make another thread about it.

Except that that example LITERALLY has NOTHING to do with the scientific process or scientific knowledge. It's purely MATHEMATICAL.

You could have just said "science is not omnipotent" or whatever (I'm not sure what the point would be because no one ever said science is).


Also the reason the burden of proof is on someone disputing current science is just because a lot of scientists have already argued for the current theory. If you want to dispute the claim, you can't ask random people to explain every single observation and experiment that led to the theory - you should go look all that up yourself.

 

[_Keno_]

Yep pretty much.

Btw this thread is meant to be about God, so unless you can disprove God with science, make another thread about it.

Well, a deity is not disprovable by any means (and neither is disproving that a peanut is orbiting Gliese 581), but most/all religions are definitely disprovable by science.

And it wasnt Slick that brought science into this thread, Dre. asked us to prove gravity as an example when talking about the burden of proof.

It feels like these discussions about religion/deities are just being recycled over and over and over, even by the same people. Havent I seen Dre. and slick argue about BoP like twice before?

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

Yep pretty much.

Btw this thread is meant to be about God, so unless you can disprove God with science, make another thread about it.

Well, a deity is not disprovable by any means (and neither is disproving that a peanut is orbiting Gliese 581), but most/all religions are definitely disprovable by science.

There's a huge difference between God and religions, most of religious ppl come to be annoying, claiming either an spesific religion is right and the rest are wrong or if you're not in one you're also wrong, even when most of them follow the same God as a goal.

 

[Dre89]

Well, a deity is not disprovable by any means (and neither is disproving that a peanut is orbiting Gliese 581), but most/all religions are definitely disprovable by science.

Care to name which ones?

I'll be interested to see what you come up with, seeing as many scientific developments come from the religions you're probably speaking up. Also be aware that Christian apologetics of today are up to date with current science, and in fact use science in arguments for God's existence. Even many miracles have supposedly been verified by multi-belief scientific panels.

I'm not going to be hasty and jump to the conclusion that you've bit off more than you can chew here, but you have put yourself in the deep end.

The other problem is is that your argument is pointless anyway. Even if you concede that for example Christianity is not disproven by science, but certain other religions are, that does no damage to religion as a whole, just those specific religions. Saying that certain interpretations of Islam are disproven by science does nothing to Christianity. It's not as if a thiest needs to defend religion in its entirety, just their specific religion.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Most of the apologetics you hear about nowadays are not only not using science, they're flat-out strawmanning it, misrepresenting it in the most disgusting of ways.

And again, what's the religious answer to Euclides? The whole "can god do something he can't do" issue? Omnipotence is a logical impossibility.

 

[Dre89]

That's because you define omnipotence as doing the logically impossible.

Omnipotence actually means the ability to create being. Have a second look at the word and you'll realise that definition is more appropriate than the ability to do the logically impossible.

And how do they straw man science? There is difference of opinion in science, theoretical physics as tons of it. This is just another case of an athiest discriminating against a thiestic interpretation of scientific findings/theorising simply because it is thiestic.

Plenty of scientists are thiests. There have even been scientists, such as the notable academic Paul Davies, who have converted to thiesm/diesm because of the science.

If you're just going to say all science done by thiests that points toward thiesm is wrong, then you lose credibility because you're not addressing science objectively, you're committing the No True Scotsman fallacy by saing the only true science is that of athiests.

 

[jaswa]

Think Dre's said before that we define
Omnipotence as unlimited in ability to create being?

What exactly is being anyways?

Can you start us off with providing a scientific argument against God then?

 

[Dre89]

Well being can be loosely defined as existence- that which is complex, has a specific form, is relational to at least one other thing (that minimum one other thing being God, or whatever you posit created it) and so on.

And they don't necessarily need an agument against god, that He can't exist (although the arguments from evil and non-belief function in that manner), they just need to show that all the reasons for believing in God are flawed, and in-turn provide an adequate explanation for the origin of the universe, seeing as many God arguments stem from the alleged necessity of a non-material creator.

 

[_Keno_]

I'm not going to be hasty and jump to the conclusion that you've bit off more than you can chew here, but you have put yourself in the deep end.

I never said I could prove all religion to be false, I just said that it is possible to prove all/almost all religions wrong (in contrast to it being impossible to prove dieties wrong). How? Using science to find contradictions.

We know that, at the very least, all but one are flawed, and therefore potentially disprovable.

IMO the bible has already been proven not to be the "word of God". Genesis is well-known to be completely false, and while you guys say "oh well its just a big metaphor," there is no backing to support that your deity would put such a false story in the opening to your "perfect word of God" holy book without at least telling you its all a metaphor.
So if you can't rely on the Bible, Christianity falls to its knees.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

it is possible to prove all/almost all religions wrong (in contrast to it being impossible to prove dieties wrong). How? Using science to find contradictions.

Agreed, Using science you can prove most of the religions wrong at some characteristics.

the bible has already been proven not to be the "word of God". Genesis is well-known to be completely false

Could you bring some explanations about that, or at least link me to it?
Not because I want you to prove anything, but to feed my own knowledge.

 

[Dre89]

I never said I could prove all religion to be false, I just said that it is possible to prove all/almost all religions wrong (in contrast to it being impossible to prove dieties wrong). How? Using science to find contradictions.

We know that, at the very least, all but one are flawed, and therefore potentially disprovable.

IMO the bible has already been proven not to be the "word of God". Genesis is well-known to be completely false, and while you guys say "oh well its just a big metaphor," there is no backing to support that your deity would put such a false story in the opening to your "perfect word of God" holy book without at least telling you its all a metaphor.
So if you can't rely on the Bible, Christianity falls to its knees.

Firstly, God is not the direct author of the Bible, He is the auctor. Most of the New Testament was written many years after the events because the Church wanted to spread the message, and there were language barriers.

Secondly, the Bible only began to be interpreted literally in modernity, due to the rise of scientism. We have evidence of the Jews before the New Testament not reading it literally. Augustine, 1500 years before Darwin, also makes it clear the Creation story is not literal, amd he proposed the idea that God placed potencies in the world, that developed over a number of years.

Third, only Protestantism falls on its knees if the Bible is faulty, because Protestantism is entirely Scripure-based. Catholicism does not necessarily need the Bible, it was just the most efficient way of spreading and preserving the message. The Catholic Tradition was there before the Bible was assembled, in fact it was the Church who put it together. You were only supposed to be reading the Bible if you thought the Church was blessed with the Holy Spirit. The Bible being the word of God is iself a teaching of the Church, we wouldn't even have the Bible without the Tradition, so no in Catholicism the Bible isn't the be all and end all.

I was hoping you had actually done some research on this, instead you just went off the uninformed modern conceptions of religion. You'll need a lot more than that to prove that science disproves religion.

 

[_Keno_]

I never claimed that God directly authored the Bible. I know full well that he didnt.
And your second sentence doesnt make much sense, as all of the new testament was written before the Church existed.

And why does it matter how other people interpreted the books of the Bible? Are their interpretations better because they are from an earlier time?

For the third part, I apologize, whenever I say "Christian" it usually means I'm referring to protestant Christians (I've never met a Catholic in my entire life, and I know next to nothing of their dogma, but know hundreds of protestants and most of their dogma, as I was raised such). It was a terrible misconception of mine.

 

[Dre89]

The Church did exist before most of the NT, hence why it was written so long after Jesus' life, because the Church decided to put the message into text to spread it where there were language barriers. If Scripture was as important as Protestants make it out to be, Jesus himself would have written it.

Knowing now you've never met a Catholic, I understand your arguments againsts Christianity. Most of your arguments are valid against Protestantism.

 

[jaswa]

If Scripture was as important as Protestants make it out to be, Jesus himself would have written it.

Care to justify?

 

[Dre89]

It speaks for itself really.

As a Protestant, you deny that there was an immediate Church and tradition that continued Jesus' teachings. If that was the case, then Jesus would know there was no institution in place to preserve his message. By this account, it was just fortunate that New Testament Scripture was written, yet apparently something Jesus had no part in is the definitive source of authority in your theology.

If Scripture was so important, then Jesus would have written it himself, because by Protestant accounts there was no immediate institution to write this all-important Scripture, and remember in Protestantism Scripture is the sole authority from God.

Remember, you can't say "well maybe Jesus didn't find Scripture important, maybe he just wanted to pass down the message orally" because hello, that's Catholic Tradition.

It just doesn't make sense to claim both that Scripture is the sole authority, but Jesus did not establish an immediate institutiom to write it, or just write it himself.

 

[jaswa]

It speaks for itself really.

As a Protestant, you deny that there was an immediate Church and tradition that continued Jesus' teachings. If that was the case, then Jesus would know there was no institution in place to preserve his message. By this account, it was just fortunate that New Testament Scripture was written, yet apparently something Jesus had no part in is the definitive source of authority in your theology.

If Scripture was so important, then Jesus would have written it himself, because by Protestant accounts there was no immediate institution to write this all-important Scripture, and remember in Protestantism Scripture is the sole authority from God.

Remember, you can't say "well maybe Jesus didn't find Scripture important, maybe he just wanted to pass down the message orally" because hello, that's Catholic Tradition.

It just doesn't make sense to claim both that Scripture is the sole authority, but Jesus did not establish an immediate institutiom to write it, or just write it himself.

1. The Bible isn't "rulebooks and tips 101 to being a good christian person", it's what Jesus and his core followers were teaching.
2. Because it is written, we know it hasn't deviated - whereas we have no way of knowing if 'tradition' has remained constant.
3. Noone is denying that the Gospel was orally spread originally, just because Rome was the political power at the time doesn't mean it is that of the Christian religion.
4. The pope's position is not justified.
5. The reason for the protestant reformation was this: Hey we've translated God's word which has been taught for the last 1500 years into English - oh look we can actually read it for ourselves and not listen to priests say what they want since the Bible was in Latin. What the hell, Jesus was saying these things and now the priests have been telling us all this other stuff, what's going on :O
6. Also don't forget we're talking about the God of the universe who created everything - I'm pretty sure God had planned for others to write it down and didn't need Jesus to waste his time here writing since he was going around doing miracles and preaching etc.

Anyways, this isn't the thread to discuss this, and this always falls on deaf ears to you, meh =\

 

[Dre89]

You assume a lot of things.

Firstly, you already assume it's the word of God. The problem is, it was only believes to be so because of the Tradition.

You say Scripture us the sole authority, yet we we wouldn't even have the NT if it wasn't for the Church.

You still haven't answered the million dollar question. If Scripture is the sole authority, and according to you Jesus didn't establish an immediate institution to write, why didn't he write it then.

In fact basing your entire faith on Scripture is circular anyways, because the idea that Scripture is the sole authority comes from the Scripture itself. That's circular, you need and external principle to verify that the Scripture in question is verifiable.

Again, the Church wrote the NT and assembled the Bible, yet you say this Church is faulty. So then how can the word of God be from such a faulty source? If the word of God can come from a faulty source, then how can you criticise the validity of other religions?

 

[jaswa]

You basically ignored everything I said.

Again, not the thread for this - we can talk about it in person.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

2. Because it is written, we know it hasn't deviated - whereas we have no way of knowing if 'tradition' has remained constant.

Hmm... Nope. It has not only been written, it has been rewritten and translated. Remember the classic "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? Turns out, it was meant to imply poisoner (my dad claims specifically of wells; which makes sense-poison the well of a village in the ****ing desert and whoops, no more village in a week or so). And that's just one such serious mistranslation that cost thousands of lives (I'm probably off by a few orders of magnitude here...).

Furthermore, how the hell do you know that the bible wasn't rewritten? A few choice passages here and there reconstrued to put christ in a better light over the centuries? Just because a book is written doesn't mean it's always going to be the same book-look at the 150th anniversary version of "The Origin of Species", complete with a 50-page bull**** rant on eugenics and godlessness by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron!

4. The pope's position is not justified.

Thank you. Seriously, what if the pope goes up and issues an official message along the lines of "Gravity is not F=m1m2/r1; AIDS is spread by devils instead of viruses; and lastly god says to slaughter your first-born son." What if? After all, he is infallable.

5. The reason for the protestant reformation was this: Hey we've translated God's word which has been taught for the last 1500 years into English - oh look we can actually read it for ourselves and not listen to priests say what they want since the Bible was in Latin. What the hell, Jesus was saying these things and now the priests have been telling us all this other stuff, what's going on :O

Oh look the priests knew latin, they understood the original language, they knew what they were talking about, they didn't fall for obvious mistranslations, and they knew damn well enough not to take the whole goddamn book literally!

6. Also don't forget we're talking about the God of the universe who created everything - I'm pretty sure God had planned for others to write it down and didn't need Jesus to waste his time here writing since he was going around doing miracles and preaching etc.

...Or he could've written it himself and pulled human errancy out of the equation entirely. Seriously, you can't argue what god "might" have thought. It's completely inane and pointless.