Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is asking for physical evidence of God fair?

Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."
slo1
Posts: 4,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 9:28:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."

Why we see weird quantum behaviors is currently beyond our ability to validate what is truly happening. There are many schools that hypothesize what is going on. We just don't have enough technology to test those theories yet. It does not mean it is beyond our ability to understand.

I would rephrase your question. What possibly could we not understand when we have empirical evidence proving it?
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:05:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."

I think that it really depends on what type of god that you put forth, and the type of arguments that you press.

If someone tries for the sole argument of faith, then they are deserving of being asked for physical evidence, because they fail to provide any evidence whatsoever, and asking for something that isn't raw emotionalism is exactly what needs to be done.

If someone is putting forth a deistic deity who's properties are ascribed in stories and heavily interacted with the world past its creation besides guiding from the background like a good play director at showtime, then asking for physical evidence is not fair, because their model would not contain physical evidence. Therefore, they must argue on a different level, and you must challenge other evidences that they present.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 10:07:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 10:05:19 PM, Lordgrae wrote:

I think that it really depends on what type of god that you put forth, and the type of arguments that you press.

If someone tries for the sole argument of faith, then they are deserving of being asked for physical evidence, because they fail to provide any evidence whatsoever, and asking for something that isn't raw emotionalism is exactly what needs to be done.

If someone is putting forth a theistic deity who's properties are ascribed in stories and heavily interacted with the world past its creation besides guiding from the background like a good play director at showtime, then asking for physical evidence is fair, because their model contains it.

If someone puts forth a deistic deity that guides the world instead of interacting, then asking for physical evidence is stupid, because their model contains no physical evidence. I think you can challenge it for being stupid for not having any physical evidence and being 'god of the gaps'-ish, but I don't think asking for physical evidence is rational, because they claim to have none.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:10:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 9:28:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."


Why we see weird quantum behaviors is currently beyond our ability to validate what is truly happening. There are many schools that hypothesize what is going on. We just don't have enough technology to test those theories yet. It does not mean it is beyond our ability to understand.

What you are describing is the Bohmian interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which has never been very widely accepted among physicists.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:30:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 10:05:19 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."

I think that it really depends on what type of god that you put forth, and the type of arguments that you press.

If someone tries for the sole argument of faith, then they are deserving of being asked for physical evidence, because they fail to provide any evidence whatsoever, and asking for something that isn't raw emotionalism is exactly what needs to be done.

If someone is putting forth a deistic deity who's properties are ascribed in stories and heavily interacted with the world past its creation besides guiding from the background like a good play director at showtime, then asking for physical evidence is not fair, because their model would not contain physical evidence. Therefore, they must argue on a different level, and you must challenge other evidences that they present.

I think you have explained your argument quite well, and you've make good points. Personally I've always had a lot of trouble accepting "God" as a bearded man in the sky.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:44:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 9:28:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."


Why we see weird quantum behaviors is currently beyond our ability to validate what is truly happening. There are many schools that hypothesize what is going on. We just don't have enough technology to test those theories yet. It does not mean it is beyond our ability to understand.

I don't know. Quantum Physics is considered to be the most successful theory in the history of science. There is no known "edge" of its applicability to any problem we have ever encountered. It has worked in every place we have ever tried it. Yet it shows us that particles are also waves, and do not exist in any really tangible way. They only exist statistically. As Tyson puts it, " Quantum Mechanics is a regime that falls outside our common sense. You can't invoke your common sense to decide that what you just learned should or shouldn't be true." I can imagine religion being rather like that for some people.

I would rephrase your question. What possibly could we not understand when we have empirical evidence proving it?

That's an interesting suggestion. We can't understand dark matter, though some scientists claim to have empirical evidence to support it. Of course I'm not sure if that's good enough, since there are other scientists who still contend that it doesn't exist.
Justpassingby
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 12:49:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is fair. One can believe anything they want.
There might be no God, there may be but too powerful for us to understand. Anything is possible, however improbable. Difficulty of explanation had never stopped humans from trying. Maybe there would be a definite answer to the God question, one way or the other.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 1:05:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 12:10:31 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/25/2014 9:28:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."


Why we see weird quantum behaviors is currently beyond our ability to validate what is truly happening. There are many schools that hypothesize what is going on. We just don't have enough technology to test those theories yet. It does not mean it is beyond our ability to understand.

What you are describing is the Bohmian interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which has never been very widely accepted among physicists.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I had read some things along these lines before, but the link was really interesting. Thanks!
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 1:26:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily.
This is a bigger leap than Bob Beamon's, how do you know this alleged entity has revealed anything?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 3:41:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."

I think we may be able to comprehend more than you think. It's fair to ask for some sort of evidence.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 8:28:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."

We humans survive and thrive by understanding how our environment works, and taking advantage of that insight. So we become very uncomfortable with questions about our environs that we cannot answer. Such mystery represents a life-threatening weakness and vulnerability to us.

The concept of God is in a significant way, an embodiment of all those answers that we don't have, but are capable of asking. God is the embodiment of the unknown. And how we relate to "God", is how we relate to the great mystery of our being. That mystery is real, and is important to us. Thus, God is real and is important to us. Because God is, in essence, the embodiment of all that mystery.

I was watching a series of lectures hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson, recently, and he mentions that a survey had been done asking scientists how much they think we know, compared to how much there is yet for us to learn about existence, and the estimate was 15% to 85% in favor of the unknown. And that estimate has been increasing the % unknown, the more we learn. It seems that the more we learn, the less we realize we know.

That's a lot of mystery. That's a lot of "God".
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 8:34:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."

No.
a: God existing outside of space and time is like us being a character in a computer game, and God existing in the "real" world. From that position within the game, nothing could be proven, only inferred. Someone who only accepts naturalistic explanations could only ever assume their universe somehow exists necessarily. Like the atheists and naturalists prefer to believe.

b: Limiting explanatory scope only to naturalistic causes assumes that nothing can exist which cannot be observed/explained. It is endowing the person with supernatural ability. In some way it is an assumption of personal Godhood. The reasonable person must admit that there is no reason why humans should have infinite explanatory power, so limiting our ultimate explanations only to what we can observe and explain, is irrational.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 8:45:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."

As you would expect I disagree.

Whilst it is very true that there is no absolute evidence that people can't argue with, but after all, some still argue who wrote Shakespeare's plays, I believe that the whole of creation is evidence of his existence, and the deeper they go with micro-biology, the more convinced I become, if that is possible.

However we cannot expect any more solid evidence than we have because God (and I) both think that, as scripture says, those who refuse to believe really have no excuses left. Paul said they were inexcusable back then, and I believe they are even more so today.

What with the evidence of design in creation, and if you have design you have to have a designer, plus the evidence from fulfilment of prophecy, such as tell us that in this time we would be, as we are, destroying the earth, we have enough, more than enough.

Of course if people don;t want to accept the evidence, and that is where the problem really lies, then maybe they should ask themselves why they don't want to.

What are they really looking for? and would they believe it if they found it?

When you think of the miracles the Israelites saw, but still strayed from the fold, I am as sceptical about that as God and Christ both declared themselves to be.

So no, in God's eyes asking for more evidence is not just unfair it is foolish on the extreme. That is shown by the statement in his word that "The wisdom of this World is foolishness with God".

However, we still all have the right to choose what we believe at the moment.

Revelation 22:11.
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 8:50:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 10:05:19 PM, Lordgrae wrote:

I think that it really depends on what type of god that you put forth, and the type of arguments that you press.

If someone tries for the sole argument of faith, then they are deserving of being asked for physical evidence, because they fail to provide any evidence whatsoever, and asking for something that isn't raw emotionalism is exactly what needs to be done.

You seem to have overlooked the meaning of faith. If we had proof, we wouldn't need faith at all. If we have no evidence whatever, there would be nothing to place our faith in. Faith is trusting in whatever evidence and reason we do have, but that has not yet been accepted as 'proof'. And there is plenty of such evidence to support placing one's faith in the reality of God.

If someone is putting forth a deistic deity who's properties are ascribed in stories and heavily interacted with the world past its creation besides guiding from the background like a good play director at showtime, then asking for physical evidence is not fair, because their model would not contain physical evidence. Therefore, they must argue on a different level, and you must challenge other evidences that they present.

I agree very much with the first part of this statement. "God", is to a significant degree, the intellectual embodiment of the unknown. So most people need some sort of 'artifice' to represent this great mystery for them, in their minds. And that's the purpose of the many religious images and depictions of God. Unfortunately, a lot of people lose or never achieve the ability to differentiate between the religious artifice for God and the divine ideal that the artifice was intended to represent. And so to try and debate these people becomes nearly impossible, because they are not fully aware of their own position, and will fight to remain ignorant of it if we try to enlighten them.

And to try and debate them in terms of physical evidence is even more absurd, in that by definition either all physicality is "evidence of God", or none of it is. In either case, that debate is pointless, as well.

Since God is essentially the intellectual embodiment of the unknown, the way to discuss or debate it would be to investigate the questions that lead us to this 'embodiment', not the artifice of 'answers'. But the anti-theists never seem to want to do that. They are obsessed with physicality as the only possible expression of truth and reality. Which to my mind, is equally absurd.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 8:51:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 8:50:09 AM, PureX wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:05:19 PM, Lordgrae wrote:

I think that it really depends on what type of god that you put forth, and the type of arguments that you press.

If someone tries for the sole argument of faith, then they are deserving of being asked for physical evidence, because they fail to provide any evidence whatsoever, and asking for something that isn't raw emotionalism is exactly what needs to be done.

You seem to have overlooked the meaning of faith. If we had proof, we wouldn't need faith at all. If we have no evidence whatever, there would be nothing to place our faith in. Faith is trusting in whatever evidence and reason we do have, but that has not yet been accepted as 'proof'. And there is plenty of such evidence to support placing one's faith in the reality of God.

If someone is putting forth a deistic deity who's properties are ascribed in stories and heavily interacted with the world past its creation besides guiding from the background like a good play director at showtime, then asking for physical evidence is not fair, because their model would not contain physical evidence. Therefore, they must argue on a different level, and you must challenge other evidences that they present.

I agree very much with the first part of this statement. "God", is to a significant degree, the intellectual embodiment of the unknown. So most people need some sort of 'artifice' to represent this great mystery for them, in their minds. And that's the purpose of the many religious images and depictions of God. Unfortunately, a lot of people lose or never achieve the ability to differentiate between the religious artifice for God and the divine ideal that the artifice was intended to represent. And so to try and debate these people becomes nearly impossible, because they are not fully aware of their own position, and will fight to remain ignorant of it if we try to enlighten them.

And to try and debate them in terms of physical evidence is even more absurd, in that by definition either all physicality is "evidence of God", or none of it is. In either case, that debate is pointless, as well.

Since God is essentially the intellectual embodiment of the unknown, the way to discuss or debate it would be to investigate the questions that lead us to this 'embodiment', not the artifice of 'answers'. But the anti-theists never seem to want to do that. They are obsessed with physicality as the only possible expression of truth and reality. Which to my mind, is equally absurd.

Got it in one.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 8:58:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 8:50:09 AM, PureX wrote:
At 4/25/2014 10:05:19 PM, Lordgrae wrote:

I think that it really depends on what type of god that you put forth, and the type of arguments that you press.

If someone tries for the sole argument of faith, then they are deserving of being asked for physical evidence, because they fail to provide any evidence whatsoever, and asking for something that isn't raw emotionalism is exactly what needs to be done.

You seem to have overlooked the meaning of faith. If we had proof, we wouldn't need faith at all. If we have no evidence whatever, there would be nothing to place our faith in. Faith is trusting in whatever evidence and reason we do have, but that has not yet been accepted as 'proof'. And there is plenty of such evidence to support placing one's faith in the reality of God.

If someone is putting forth a deistic deity who's properties are ascribed in stories and heavily interacted with the world past its creation besides guiding from the background like a good play director at showtime, then asking for physical evidence is not fair, because their model would not contain physical evidence. Therefore, they must argue on a different level, and you must challenge other evidences that they present.

I agree very much with the first part of this statement. "God", is to a significant degree, the intellectual embodiment of the unknown. So most people need some sort of 'artifice' to represent this great mystery for them, in their minds. And that's the purpose of the many religious images and depictions of God. Unfortunately, a lot of people lose or never achieve the ability to differentiate between the religious artifice for God and the divine ideal that the artifice was intended to represent. And so to try and debate these people becomes nearly impossible, because they are not fully aware of their own position, and will fight to remain ignorant of it if we try to enlighten them.

And to try and debate them in terms of physical evidence is even more absurd, in that by definition either all physicality is "evidence of God", or none of it is. In either case, that debate is pointless, as well.

Since God is essentially the intellectual embodiment of the unknown, the way to discuss or debate it would be to investigate the questions that lead us to this 'embodiment', not the artifice of 'answers'. But the anti-theists never seem to want to do that. They are obsessed with physicality as the only possible expression of truth and reality. Which to my mind, is equally absurd.

I don't agree with that, i see god as the root of all that is known and unknown. We know how thunderstorms work. Great, but i still think God made them because he made the "code", which allows them to occur in the fashion they do, which is full of artistic and emotional meaning.
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 9:00:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 3:41:17 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

I think we may be able to comprehend more than you think. It's fair to ask for some sort of evidence.

I'm sure that's a might reassuring presumption. But it's an assumption that's running out of road.

As has already been pointed out, the more we learn about the 'reality of physics' the more unreal it is becoming, to us. The conclusions we are drawing from the evidence we are getting are no longer conclusions that could be otherwise drawn by reasonable human beings.

I find it interesting that many atheists are so quick to accept blindly these absurd mathematical propositions about the bizarre reality of quantum physics and yet they find the idea of God so outrageously improbable. And especially so when they don't even seem to understand the difference between the religious artifice involved in representing the God ideal, and the ideal of God, itself.
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 9:14:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 8:58:08 AM, andymcstab wrote:

I don't agree with that, i see god as the root of all that is known and unknown. We know how thunderstorms work. Great, but i still think God made them because he made the "code", which allows them to occur in the fashion they do, which is full of artistic and emotional meaning.

I do, too.

I have never ascribed to the idea that the essential characteristic of the God ideal is that it's 'supernatural' as opposed to 'natural'. Both remain a mystery, to us, so it only makes sense that both are expressions of God, which is the embodiment of the great (divine) mystery.

I also am becoming less and less annoyed by humanity's insistence of perceiving God as omni-consciousness. In fact, the more I learn about physical reality from science, the more likely this is actually becoming.

But I am (and perhaps you are, as well) a rarity in this regard among theists, and particularly among religious theists. And of course among atheists, also. I'm not going into this exploration of life and reality presuming what God is or is not. I'm only going in presuming THAT God is (as the great unknown). And from there my mind's eyes remain open.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 9:42:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 9:14:26 AM, PureX wrote:
At 4/26/2014 8:58:08 AM, andymcstab wrote:

I don't agree with that, i see god as the root of all that is known and unknown. We know how thunderstorms work. Great, but i still think God made them because he made the "code", which allows them to occur in the fashion they do, which is full of artistic and emotional meaning.

I do, too.

I have never ascribed to the idea that the essential characteristic of the God ideal is that it's 'supernatural' as opposed to 'natural'. Both remain a mystery, to us, so it only makes sense that both are expressions of God, which is the embodiment of the great (divine) mystery.

I also am becoming less and less annoyed by humanity's insistence of perceiving God as omni-consciousness. In fact, the more I learn about physical reality from science, the more likely this is actually becoming.

But I am (and perhaps you are, as well) a rarity in this regard among theists, and particularly among religious theists. And of course among atheists, also. I'm not going into this exploration of life and reality presuming what God is or is not. I'm only going in presuming THAT God is (as the great unknown). And from there my mind's eyes remain open.

It seems more likely that god is the explanation needed by the frightened of the unknown.

Death is apparently scary and distressing for the living, they can imagine so they imagine a fantasy where, when they die or their loved ones die, hey presto they don't really die hallelujah. Thank .........ummmm....oh I know god.

Just how many of these gods has man created in let's say 200,000yrs?
Quite a few I would think!
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
slo1
Posts: 4,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 9:51:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 12:44:18 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/25/2014 9:28:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."


Why we see weird quantum behaviors is currently beyond our ability to validate what is truly happening. There are many schools that hypothesize what is going on. We just don't have enough technology to test those theories yet. It does not mean it is beyond our ability to understand.

I don't know. Quantum Physics is considered to be the most successful theory in the history of science. There is no known "edge" of its applicability to any problem we have ever encountered. It has worked in every place we have ever tried it. Yet it shows us that particles are also waves, and do not exist in any really tangible way. They only exist statistically. As Tyson puts it, " Quantum Mechanics is a regime that falls outside our common sense. You can't invoke your common sense to decide that what you just learned should or shouldn't be true." I can imagine religion being rather like that for some people.

I would rephrase your question. What possibly could we not understand when we have empirical evidence proving it?

That's an interesting suggestion. We can't understand dark matter, though some scientists claim to have empirical evidence to support it. Of course I'm not sure if that's good enough, since there are other scientists who still contend that it doesn't exist.

Quantum mechanics is the most successful theory of all time to the point that we know know classical physics is just a very close approximation for big things, but it only predicts the behavior of matter. It does not explain why we see that behavior. (that gets into the entire discussion of the Copenhagen school who says there is no point to seek further into the why, but keeping a cap on human curiosity is like telling a lion to stop eating gazelle.)

When Tyson asks, "is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension", he is leaving up the possibility that undiscovered realities will explain it, such as extra dimensions. That in fact is where string theory has postulated that explains things we can't explain with our current models.

As far as dark matter again, we currently can't explain the details of dark matter. We are trying to figure out if it first really exists or not. We hypothesize that something must exist to cause higher gravitational pull in the center of the galaxy or the outer edges would rip free of the galaxy because they are traveling so fast.

There has been some recent empirical evidence the suggests that dark matter is real, but proving existence is not the same thing as proving how it formed, why it formed, and other relevant questions.

The only way something is beyond our understanding is if it is impossible to gain direct or indirect empirical evidence to test and validate against.
slo1
Posts: 4,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 9:58:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 12:10:31 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/25/2014 9:28:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."


Why we see weird quantum behaviors is currently beyond our ability to validate what is truly happening. There are many schools that hypothesize what is going on. We just don't have enough technology to test those theories yet. It does not mean it is beyond our ability to understand.

What you are describing is the Bohmian interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which has never been very widely accepted among physicists.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Not true, there are many more than the Bohmian interpretation that trys to further understand why the weird behavior happens versus the Copenhagen that ignored the why question. Many worlds, many mind, consciousness variants, statistical variants, even ones that try to take the observer out of it.

Also one goes beyond quantum mechanics there is all flavors of string theory.
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 10:06:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 9:42:43 AM, bulproof wrote:

It seems more likely that god is the explanation needed by the frightened of the unknown.

Death is apparently scary and distressing for the living, they can imagine so they imagine a fantasy where, when they die or their loved ones die, hey presto they don't really die hallelujah. Thank .........ummmm....oh I know god.

For some people, who are intolerably frightened of the unknown, God becomes an acceptable pretense of knowing. That's true. People fear death, and through their characterization and embodiment of this great and fearful unknown, they imagine that the do know, and so are "safe". But that's only a part of the ideal of God and how it functions for humanity. And of religion, too. There is far more to it then that.

And anyway, why would you begrudge these folks their comfort, even if it's imagined? Who are you or I to stand in judgment of their resolution to a fear that we do not feel?

Just how many of these gods has man created in let's say 200,000yrs?

Every one of them.

Every God-concept is an "invention". In fact, every concept we humans hold to is an invention, based on our experiences of reality, sorted out by our reason, and our desires. The concept of God isn't much different from our concept of love, or of fairness, or of beauty. These are all subjective concepts based on personal experiences, invented with the purpose of resolving our fear of the unknown. What is the pursuit of knowledge at all, but an attempt at resolving our fear of the unknown?

And keep in mind, that the idea of "reality" that you are currently holding onto in your mind, is a conceptual invention. And is almost certainly wrong in many respects even though you are currently presuming and living as if it were correct. Are you really so different or superior to the theist, who is doing the very same thing?
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 10:07:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 9:58:31 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/26/2014 12:10:31 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/25/2014 9:28:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."


Why we see weird quantum behaviors is currently beyond our ability to validate what is truly happening. There are many schools that hypothesize what is going on. We just don't have enough technology to test those theories yet. It does not mean it is beyond our ability to understand.

What you are describing is the Bohmian interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which has never been very widely accepted among physicists.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Not true, there are many more than the Bohmian interpretation that trys to further understand why the weird behavior happens versus the Copenhagen that ignored the why question. Many worlds, many mind, consciousness variants, statistical variants, even ones that try to take the observer out of it.

Yet the Copenhagen interpretation is the most popular one among physicists.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...

As for the Many Worlds interpretation, I believe RT built up a strong case against it concerning the assumption of Naive Realism.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 10:24:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 9:00:39 AM, PureX wrote:
At 4/26/2014 3:41:17 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

I think we may be able to comprehend more than you think. It's fair to ask for some sort of evidence.

I'm sure that's a might reassuring presumption. But it's an assumption that's running out of road.

It's got nothing to do with reassurance. It's just the fact that it's amazing the amount of thing we can already "comprehend".


As has already been pointed out, the more we learn about the 'reality of physics' the more unreal it is becoming, to us. The conclusions we are drawing from the evidence we are getting are no longer conclusions that could be otherwise drawn by reasonable human beings.

So it's counter-intuitive? That doesn't mean it's incomprehensible.


I find it interesting that many atheists are so quick to accept blindly these absurd mathematical propositions about the bizarre reality of quantum physics and yet they find the idea of God so outrageously improbable. And especially so when they don't even seem to understand the difference between the religious artifice involved in representing the God ideal, and the ideal of God, itself.

Because one has been discovered and the other has been made up. Plus you just define "God" as the things we don't know, so "God's" always shrinking. I appreciate that you used quotation marks to call it "God" earlier, though.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 10:55:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 10:06:50 AM, PureX wrote:
And keep in mind, that the idea of "reality" that you are currently holding onto in your mind, is a conceptual invention. And is almost certainly wrong in many respects

You would need, at the very least, to know what my idea of reality is (and you can't) in order that you can claim that it is almost certainly wrong in many respects

If man, though, has been creating these gods forever then to what end? Can you think of a reason other than the one I have proposed?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 11:34:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 8:34:19 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."

No.
a: God existing outside of space and time is like us being a character in a computer game, and God existing in the "real" world. From that position within the game, nothing could be proven, only inferred. Someone who only accepts naturalistic explanations could only ever assume their universe somehow exists necessarily. Like the atheists and naturalists prefer to believe.

But God is basically someone who can and has created a character within the computer game, with full GM/cheat access.

If I met someone on an online game, and that person claimed he was a GM, there are many things he can do to prove to me within the game that he is telling the truth.

b: Limiting explanatory scope only to naturalistic causes assumes that nothing can exist which cannot be observed/explained. It is endowing the person with supernatural ability. In some way it is an assumption of personal Godhood. The reasonable person must admit that there is no reason why humans should have infinite explanatory power, so limiting our ultimate explanations only to what we can observe and explain, is irrational.

No, it doesnt. The problem here, is that things that exist which cannot be observed, is indistinguishable from things that do not exist.

Having an invisible, intangible pet dragon in my basement, is indistinguishable from an empty basement. We understand this concept of existance, very well. And it is based on our understanding that we apply certain, reasonable rules with regards to whether we accept that something exists or not.

And we dont have to necessarily have an explanation for it. There are plenty of things that we lack a full explanation for, but we can still observe it.
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 11:46:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 10:24:24 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

It's got nothing to do with reassurance. It's just the fact that it's amazing the amount of thing we can already "comprehend".

And yet we know so little. It's estimated that we perhaps know 15% of what there is to know about the physical universe. And that number is actually decreasing the more we find out, instead of increasing.

And as to what we comprehend, that term refers to an over-all understanding, which is something we are not even close to having. What I find interesting, here, is that those of you who believe this nonsense about how much we know, I think, believe it for the exact same reason that the theists believes in the reality of his religious artifice. Both are afraid to stand face to face with their own profound ignorance, and the fear that profound ignorance inspires, and humbly accept their own vulnerability.

Because one has been discovered and the other has been made up. Plus you just define "God" as the things we don't know, so "God's" always shrinking. I appreciate that you used quotation marks to call it "God" earlier, though.

I also used those quotations for the term "reality". Because like "God", reality (to us) is also an intellectual concept based on our experience, reason, and desire. Both our concepts of God and reality are equally discovered and made up. If you would take some time to consider how your human brain works, you would realize that your access to reality is very limited, and so is your capacity for understanding it. We humans are very far from understanding it. And the only thing we have been learning these last 75 to 100 years about reality is that it is far stranger and more inexplicable than we had ever imagined. The more we've learned about it the more we realize how little we actually know.

I realize this flies in the face of the science-worshipping atheist who imagines that mankind is just about to figure it all out and eradicate the god of ignorance, but I can reasonably assure you that isn't going to happen anytime soon, and very likely it will never happen, because we probably don't have the intellectual capacity for understanding it all.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2014 11:54:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/26/2014 11:34:59 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/26/2014 8:34:19 AM, andymcstab wrote:
At 4/25/2014 8:30:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
If a being capable of existing outside time and of creating the entire universe does exist then it would be beyond the comprehension of the human mind to know and/or understand anything more about it that what it revealed voluntarily. After all, science tells us that even Quantum Mechanics, the most successful theory ever put-forth, is counter-intuitive - beyond our power to comprehend. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it: "I'm left wondering . . . and I'm not alone . . . whether so much of what we see as Quantum Mechanics . . . that defies our common sense . . . that is just crazy, loopy, weird . . . is actually some sensible thing going on in a higher dimension . . ."

No.
a: God existing outside of space and time is like us being a character in a computer game, and God existing in the "real" world. From that position within the game, nothing could be proven, only inferred. Someone who only accepts naturalistic explanations could only ever assume their universe somehow exists necessarily. Like the atheists and naturalists prefer to believe.

But God is basically someone who can and has created a character within the computer game, with full GM/cheat access.

If I met someone on an online game, and that person claimed he was a GM, there are many things he can do to prove to me within the game that he is telling the truth.

What, you mean like Jesus did? However, nobody has to come and prove to you anything, especially if your life is a test of one kind of another, ie to see if you will come to God on your own volition.

b: Limiting explanatory scope only to naturalistic causes assumes that nothing can exist which cannot be observed/explained. It is endowing the person with supernatural ability. In some way it is an assumption of personal Godhood. The reasonable person must admit that there is no reason why humans should have infinite explanatory power, so limiting our ultimate explanations only to what we can observe and explain, is irrational.

No, it doesnt. The problem here, is that things that exist which cannot be observed, is indistinguishable from things that do not exist.
Only within the framework of human intellect and its capacity to observe or explain.

Having an invisible, intangible pet dragon in my basement, is indistinguishable from an empty basement. We understand this concept of existance, very well. And it is based on our understanding that we apply certain, reasonable rules with regards to whether we accept that something exists or not.
Right, but there is no evidence for an invisible pet dragon. Here we return to evidence vs a certain kind of evidence, ie naturalistic. There is plenty of evidence for God, none for your pet dragon. The two concepts are only equal on a facile level, when you reduce everything to naturalism. Unlike your pet dragon, the concept of God is not a creation ex nihilo, it is rationally inferred through evidence. It is not something which has to be taught, but all humans to recognize the universe is a creation by default. They have to be taught otherwise.

Limiting explanatory scope to naturalism, is contrary to reason. It is a castration of rationalism. If the cause lays outside of our little bubble, or outside of our puny powers of observation or explanation, we will never find it when naturalism is adhered to like a religion.


And we dont have to necessarily have an explanation for it. There are plenty of things that we lack a full explanation for, but we can still observe it.

Right, but you cannot claim those things to be natural on any other basis than faith.