Is it possible to prove the validity of a certain belief system over another?

[Dre89]

I have stated numerous times EM concludes truths.

You've only described descriptive ethics, not normative ethics. Still, there are philosophical truths outside of EM, such as EM concluding truths.

The painting analogy isn't an argument about complexity. It's showing that we don't need to perceive the cause to infer what the cause was.

But I'm curious to know how you concluded I was being circular of all things.

 

[ballin4life]

The argument for God is quasi empirical. We observe empirically this idea of "causes" and then we ask "well what caused the universe?".

However empirical methodology does not conclude truths. It only rejects falsehoods.

There is always the possibility that our senses are deceiving us, we are hallucinating, that our measurements follow a pattern by random chance, or (most likely) that our theories will be approximate but imperfect. There is no way to ever be certain of an empirical "fact".

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

But we deduce the existence of things that we do not observe, such as mathematical and ethical (or lack thereof in the latter case) truths.

You're also placing unfair demands on God. God, by His nature, does not exist to be perceived or observed, because He precedes the existence of that which perceive and observe.

So if God were to be perceived or observed, it would be because He makes an active effort to be perceived, such as through miracles etc. but His default nature would obviously not be perceivable.

Secondly, the argument for God is from necessity, and you don't always need to observe something to infer it's necessity. For example, you don't need to see the painter to know that the painting was painting. You can infer from what the nature of a painting that a painter painted it, even if you don't observe the painter. You may disagree that God is necessary (but that's a complex debate), but it's certainly not necessary that we perceive Him to rationally posit His existence.

We have already discussed the mathematical exception. Ethical truths do not exist because they are subjective; all of them are.

I don't see the point in stating that God does not exist to be observed. Does anything exist to be observed? What does this statement even mean? Even if he precedes observation, it doesn't meant he cannot be observed.

So he can be observed! Let us observe him then. Oh, you can't name any instances of God performing "miracles" outside the Bible? Well then there's nothing to be observed, even though God can be observed. Empirically then, there is no evidence or grounds to the statement "God exists."


And even in your second argument you use empirical methodology to observe the painting and conclude truths about the "painter," whatever the painter may be. How can you say that you cannot use empirical methodology to discuss the existence of God when you do it yourself?

Also, what ballin said.

 

[Dre89]

The fact that there are no ethical truths is itself a truth you concluded without EM, that was my point.

With the painting, yes I observe it, but I don't need to observe the cause. The point of the argument was that I don't need to observe the cause to know it was the cause, I can infer it from observing the effect. I don't see what your contention is here.

The observation point is that God is not accessible through EM because He does not exist within what constitutes our perception (time, space, matter etc.).

 

[ballin4life]

The more you lean on God as this vague "first cause" entity, the less he resembles the usual notion of God.

That's why I say that if you want to make the first cause argument, you can't say that God has any specific properties (like will, omnipotence, omniscience, etc)

 

[GwJ]

The fact that there are no ethical truths is itself a truth you concluded without EM, that was my point.

With the painting, yes I observe it, but I don't need to observe the cause. The point of the argument was that I don't need to observe the cause to know it was the cause, I can infer it from observing the effect. I don't see what your contention is here.

The observation point is that God is not accessible through EM because He does not exist within what constitutes our perception (time, space, matter etc.).

So what you're saying is...

There's no logical reason to believe in a god.

Then you'll pull out the ignorance clause too, right?

 

[Dre89]

When did I imply there's no logical reason? The argument (or one of) is that the universe necessitates a first cause, or ultimate reality with the traits I attributed to God.

You keep making posts that have no substance to them. If you're going to say I'm implying there's no reason to believe in God, actually prove it. Instead you do content-less one liners in an attempt to force arguments out of the opposition without having to make any of your own.

 

[GwJ]

The observation point is that God is not accessible through EM because He does not exist within what constitutes our perception (time, space, matter etc.).

What other means do we have of understanding? From your posts, it seems like you need to believe SOMETHING created the universe as opposed to an cosmological event causing it. There's no logical rationale other than "Well, I can't imagine it happening otherwise, so it must be this".

And I'm not trying to post these one-liners, but there's really nothing I can reply in depth to. I'm not going to fluff my posts up to appear smarter.

 

[Dre89]

I'm claiming that God actuated that cosmological event.

Your point about it being meaningless is nullified by the point that atheists attempt to disprove God philosophically, which according to you is invalid.

Reason is a means of understanding. It's a means athiests use to disprove God.

Don't tell me I have to go back to saying that EM is not the only thing that concludes truths.

 

[GwJ]

And where's your proof for or at least very logical reasoning behind a god starting that cosmological event?

 

[ballin4life]

He defines God as whatever started that cosmological event.

 

[GwJ]

That doesn't explain why there needs to be a god. It's already been proven that the big bang could happen on its own.

 

[Mike]

That doesn't explain why there needs to be a god. It's already been proven that the big bang could happen on its own.

Actually Dre's point is that the observable universe was created with time and space already existing, so how did time and space come about? I'm not sure if there's an explanation for that.

 

[Theftz22]

Why do space and time necessitate a cause? Causality is an effect of space and time. Why are we applying laws of the universe to anything before it? And that is to assume that we can even go sequentially prior to the universe, which makes no sense as it literally was the beginning of time. It's akin, as some have pointed out, to asking what is North of the North Pole.

 

[Mike]

It's not a bad question to ask. Hawking states that the universe began in a point of space and time, but I've also read that the space and time were brought into existence by the Big Bang. Not having any sort of formal education on the subject, you can see why that would confuse me. While it is meaningless to talk about the unknowable, to my understanding the question may possibly be answerable... maybe.

Is anybody here a physics nerd?

 

[Dre89]

Space is intertwined with time, and it's been shown infinite regress is impossible.

But my real issue with space time being the first cause is that you're saying that the first cause, or ultimate reality if you believe in infinite regress, is complex and has a specific form. When I get home I'll explain the problem of that.

And science can never prove what the first cause was, it can only demonstrate the first activity in the observable world. Any claim about the first cause is a metaphysical one.

 

[ballin4life]

If it's a metaphysical claim, then how can anyone show that an infinite regress is impossible?

Also what is the "form" of space and time? Space and time aren't objects.