Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

God is Compatible with Science

KCG
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd originally written a very long piece taking many points and putting them together. Instead, if anyone is interested, I'd like to handle one point at a time until we come to a mutual agreement, and then the next point can be raised.

Starting from a Christian point of view. Using logic, we can conclude that God and Science can exist together.

Point 1 - God's Nature

Most Christians claim that there is evil in the world because we have free will, and the afterlife is the place where balance is created so that both qualities are present. A fair God would not allow bad people to get away with their actions, but a good God would not take away free will.

Pro: To be fair and good, God has to step back and allow full free will.
imperialchimp
Posts: 395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2016 8:02:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM, KCG wrote:
I'd originally written a very long piece taking many points and putting them together. Instead, if anyone is interested, I'd like to handle one point at a time until we come to a mutual agreement, and then the next point can be raised.



Starting from a Christian point of view. Using logic, we can conclude that God and Science can exist together.


Point 1 - God's Nature

Most Christians claim that there is evil in the world because we have free will, and the afterlife is the place where balance is created so that both qualities are present. A fair God would not allow bad people to get away with their actions, but a good God would not take away free will.


Pro: To be fair and good, God has to step back and allow full free will.

God created the world in seven days. This is not compatible with science

Some scientists don't believe in free will.

The universe is 6000-15,000 years old in the Bible. 4.47 billion year half-life of uranium exists.

If we are talking about something like Deism, then we have a different story.
KCG
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2016 8:55:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2016 8:02:55 AM, imperialchimp wrote:

God created the world in seven days. This is not compatible with science

Some scientists don't believe in free will.

The universe is 6000-15,000 years old in the Bible. 4.47 billion year half-life of uranium exists.

If we are talking about something like Deism, then we have a different story.

The discussion is similar to Deism. We can start there, but there is a particular line I'd wanted to set up. Think Deist beliefs but with a Christian filter. This is why the first post stated from a Christian's point of view.

To your points:

Creation and the universe's age both come with the same presupposition.

For Christians who believe the Bible is infallible and absolutely the word of God, there is a logical loop in the text, but I maintain that the message of the Bible, holds up under logic at several points throughout.

Revelation 22: 16

18I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

If one were to say that the word of the Bible is infallible, then how can one come to this point where it states that it is possible to change the words in the Bible (and I know the specific reference is to the prophecy, but why would a prophecy be susceptible to changes and edits while the rest of the book is not? With knowledge that the Bible has not only been in the hands of power while we know it is possible for man to be corrupt and make changes that allows him absolute power over people, but it has also been translated multiple times)? Using logic, one must accept that the Bible cannot be understood as, word for word, untouched.

As far as some scientists not believing in free will, under this theory, they may be right. It would be 50/50, but God would still be compatible with science either way.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,695
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2016 2:53:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2016 8:02:55 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM, KCG wrote:
I'd originally written a very long piece taking many points and putting them together. Instead, if anyone is interested, I'd like to handle one point at a time until we come to a mutual agreement, and then the next point can be raised.



Starting from a Christian point of view. Using logic, we can conclude that God and Science can exist together.


Point 1 - God's Nature

Most Christians claim that there is evil in the world because we have free will, and the afterlife is the place where balance is created so that both qualities are present. A fair God would not allow bad people to get away with their actions, but a good God would not take away free will.


Pro: To be fair and good, God has to step back and allow full free will.

God created the world in seven days. This is not compatible with science

Some scientists don't believe in free will.

The universe is 6000-15,000 years old in the Bible. 4.47 billion year half-life of uranium exists.

If we are talking about something like Deism, then we have a different story.

Not to detracts from the OP, but it is worth nothing some other points.
The bible you are referring to is Judaism, adopted by Christians.
Very few, next to none, believe this means 7 - 24 hour periods.
Among Christians, most do not believe this, but many more do compared to Jews.
Some Christians do not believe in free will, Calvinism is one group.

Ditto for the age of the universe.
You repeat the Atheist myths of Christianity, who seem to think nothing has changed since 1500. For some reason they do not believe this about Science.
sdavio
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2016 4:10:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM, KCG wrote:
Point 1 - God's Nature

Most Christians claim that there is evil in the world because we have free will, and the afterlife is the place where balance is created so that both qualities are present. A fair God would not allow bad people to get away with their actions, but a good God would not take away free will.


Pro: To be fair and good, God has to step back and allow full free will.

How is this relevant to the argument that God is compatible with modern science? The findings of science have in no way confirmed the analogy of the external world to a vast consciousness, the presence of some cosmic scheme of moral retribution, or any faculty of "free will" in the human being which escapes the causal chain.
KCG
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2016 4:22:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2016 4:10:22 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM, KCG wrote:
Point 1 - God's Nature

Most Christians claim that there is evil in the world because we have free will, and the afterlife is the place where balance is created so that both qualities are present. A fair God would not allow bad people to get away with their actions, but a good God would not take away free will.


Pro: To be fair and good, God has to step back and allow full free will.

How is this relevant to the argument that God is compatible with modern science? The findings of science have in no way confirmed the analogy of the external world to a vast consciousness, the presence of some cosmic scheme of moral retribution, or any faculty of "free will" in the human being which escapes the causal chain.

I did not say that science confirms God. My starting statement is that God is compatible with science, meaning those two are not mutually exclusive as some people think. This is just point one to what I wanted to discuss.
keithprosser
Posts: 7,994
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2016 5:13:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2016 4:22:51 PM, KCG wrote:
At 12/11/2016 4:10:22 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM, KCG wrote:
Point 1 - God's Nature

Most Christians claim that there is evil in the world because we have free will, and the afterlife is the place where balance is created so that both qualities are present. A fair God would not allow bad people to get away with their actions, but a good God would not take away free will.


Pro: To be fair and good, God has to step back and allow full free will.

How is this relevant to the argument that God is compatible with modern science? The findings of science have in no way confirmed the analogy of the external world to a vast consciousness, the presence of some cosmic scheme of moral retribution, or any faculty of "free will" in the human being which escapes the causal chain.


I did not say that science confirms God. My starting statement is that God is compatible with science, meaning those two are not mutually exclusive as some people think. This is just point one to what I wanted to discuss.

I don't think that compatability per se is the issue. Contemporary science is all about explaining the way the universe works in purely physical and materialistic terms. God, miracles (along with ghosts and magic) are simply not permissable as elements of a scientific theory.

Historically scientists did not always exclude god from intervening in the physical processes of the world, and even today many good scientists these days are not atheists. But in general nowadays they reconcile that by excluding god from any role in the physical or mechanical operation of the world but allowing for Him to have a role in spheres such as morality, an attitude sometimes referred to as 'NOMA' - "non-overlapping Magisteria".
Subutai
Posts: 4,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2016 8:29:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM, KCG wrote:
I'd originally written a very long piece taking many points and putting them together. Instead, if anyone is interested, I'd like to handle one point at a time until we come to a mutual agreement, and then the next point can be raised.



Starting from a Christian point of view. Using logic, we can conclude that God and Science can exist together.


Point 1 - God's Nature

Most Christians claim that there is evil in the world because we have free will, and the afterlife is the place where balance is created so that both qualities are present. A fair God would not allow bad people to get away with their actions, but a good God would not take away free will.


Pro: To be fair and good, God has to step back and allow full free will.

Well God can be compatible with science, but the concept of a god goes against the scientific spirit, because omnipotent, omniscient beings that are, by their very nature, immutable and nonreducible, cannot be part of a strictly scientific framework.

Plus, if you consider the Christian God with a literal interpretation of the Bible, God is not compatible with science, because there are many scientific inaccuracies in the Bible that God supposedly "created". The argument you quote in your post in no way alleviates this problem. In fact, it's quite irrelevant, because free will, at least right now, is a philosophical concept, and not a scientific one.
We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2016 3:56:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2016 8:02:55 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM, KCG wrote:
I'd originally written a very long piece taking many points and putting them together. Instead, if anyone is interested, I'd like to handle one point at a time until we come to a mutual agreement, and then the next point can be raised.



Starting from a Christian point of view. Using logic, we can conclude that God and Science can exist together.


Point 1 - God's Nature

Most Christians claim that there is evil in the world because we have free will, and the afterlife is the place where balance is created so that both qualities are present. A fair God would not allow bad people to get away with their actions, but a good God would not take away free will.


Pro: To be fair and good, God has to step back and allow full free will.

God created the world in seven days. This is not compatible with science

Sure it is, you just need to understand the history and context of the Genesis creation story.

The Creation epic had its source in a Pre-Judaic, ancient people that counted in base six. In a base six numbering system there is no number seven, yet these ancient people, probably pre-Babylonian, did have the number seven, it was God's number, numerically representing wholeness and totality, their number seven was outside of and transcended the counting system.

Within context, to say that all of creation came into existence in seven days would be to say that this is what happened in the totality of time. The rest is just putting things in the proper order, and interestingly, the Genesis Creation story nailed it incredibly well. If you can get past the number seven thing you can see a telling of the story of the beginning (genesis) and evolution of the universe in the Genesis creation story.

There is also a way in which science confirms the creation of the universe in six literal days, just for grins I"ll put that out in a separate post. You will need to understand the General Theory of Relativity and Big Bang cosmology to understand it.

Some scientists don't believe in free will.

Most scientists do believe in free will, do you think science isn't compatible with science then?

The universe is 6000-15,000 years old in the Bible. 4.47 billion year half-life of uranium exists.

The Genesis narrative "images" reality in a relational way, it is designed to bear witness to what is fundamental about experience, not to be a historical record of scientific facts. It is an "inner" rather than an "outer" chart of reality; you just can't look at it from outside and understand it logically as if it were science.

The Genesis narrative is codified memory as opposed to historical record, its intent was to "image" reality, and "relate" the individual to the whole, to help the individual understand where they fit it. It was never intended to be a historical record.

Religious narratives achieve greatness because of their power to generate meanings, not because of their value as an historical record. You are attempting a reinterpretation of the transcendent dimension in the Genesis narrative that defines it as religious in the first place, by assuming that "narrative", implies record, it doesn't. You are making the mistake of "historicism" by presuming a referential interpretation of Genesis, there is certainly nothing scientific about misreading an ancient document out of context. By forcing a referential interpretation onto Genesis, you are presuming an alien intention it was never designed to serve

If we are talking about something like Deism, then we have a different story.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2016 4:07:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Perhaps science and Genesis concur that the universe was created in six literal days.

According to the General Theory of Relativity space and time are not absolute and uniform; they are relative to a frame of reference. Generally accepted cosmological theory tells us that the time/space continuum has been expanding since the creation of the universe in the "Big Bang". What this means is that the temporal frame of reference of "the beginning" is dramatically different from our temporal frame of reference. From the beginning frame of reference, time has expanded exponentially since the beginning; this relationship would be inverted from our frame of reference.

The General Theory provides a mathematical framework that allows us to quantify the expansion of the space/time continuum relative to our frame of reference; it tells us that each time the universe doubled in time and space, the perception of time is halved from our frame of reference.

Therefore, current scientific theory states that the initial moment when the relationship we refer to with the word "time" began, would have occurred when the dynamics of heat and expansion caused matter to form, that moment is commonly referred to as "quark confinement". The General Theory calculates the initial ratio of time between our frame of reference and the frame of reference of the beginning, to be equal to the ratio between the temperature of quark confinement (10.9 times 10 to the twelfth power Kelvin) to the temperature of the universe today (2.73 degrees Kelvin). Remember that since the beginning, time is expanding exponentially from the beginning frame of reference, and as time proceeds it is contracting exponentially from our frame of reference. Utilizing the algorithmic time calculations of the General Theory we can calculate that a single twenty four hour day, from the frame of reference of the beginning, would have expanded in such a way that it would be measured as roughly eight billion years from today"s frame of reference. A second twenty four hour day would be measured as roughly four billion years, a third as two billion years, a fourth as one billion, a fifth as a half billion, and a sixth as a quarter billion years.

So, from the frame of reference of the beginning, six twenty four hour days, would have expanded in such a way that, from our frame of reference, it would be measured as fifteen and three quarter billion years, roughly the age of the universe as estimated by current Big Bang scientific theory.

So there you go, just like the Bible says, the entire universe was created in six literal days.

I"m no creationist by any stretch, and the Bible is not a science textbook, but there is indeed a remarkable correspondence between what modern science tells us and what the Bible tells us about the creation of physical reality as it pertains to the question of six days versus fifteen plus billion years.

All I can say is that it is very hard to see this remarkable correspondence between modern science and the Genesis creation narrative as coincidence only.

(This isn"t my analysis btw, I am paraphrasing in only a few paragraphs here, the calculations of renowned physicist Gerald Schroeder from his book "The Science of God".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2016 4:22:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2016 2:53:35 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 12/11/2016 8:02:55 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM, KCG wrote:
I'd originally written a very long piece taking many points and putting them together. Instead, if anyone is interested, I'd like to handle one point at a time until we come to a mutual agreement, and then the next point can be raised.



Starting from a Christian point of view. Using logic, we can conclude that God and Science can exist together.


Point 1 - God's Nature

Most Christians claim that there is evil in the world because we have free will, and the afterlife is the place where balance is created so that both qualities are present. A fair God would not allow bad people to get away with their actions, but a good God would not take away free will.


Pro: To be fair and good, God has to step back and allow full free will.

God created the world in seven days. This is not compatible with science

Some scientists don't believe in free will.

The universe is 6000-15,000 years old in the Bible. 4.47 billion year half-life of uranium exists.

If we are talking about something like Deism, then we have a different story.

Not to detracts from the OP, but it is worth nothing some other points.
The bible you are referring to is Judaism, adopted by Christians.
Very few, next to none, believe this means 7 - 24 hour periods.
Among Christians, most do not believe this, but many more do compared to Jews.
Some Christians do not believe in free will, Calvinism is one group.

Ditto for the age of the universe.
You repeat the Atheist myths of Christianity, who seem to think nothing has changed since 1500. For some reason they do not believe this about Science.

The Bible is a book that includes history and prophecy, poetry and love songs, allegories and parables, none of which is conducive to any kind of literal translation. What is really hard to believe is how so many of our spiritual detractors make claims to being more intelligent and logical while demanding literal translations of religious narratives.

If true intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, the ability to recognize connections, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought, then it follows logically that the insistent demands of our spiritual detractors that Genesis be understood and explained literally is an unintelligent claim.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Devilry
Posts: 5,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2016 4:45:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2016 4:22:07 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

Is your son still a scientist?
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2016 9:17:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2016 4:45:24 AM, Devilry wrote:
At 12/12/2016 4:22:07 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

Is your son still a scientist?

Yes, he's a biochemist, doing cancer research.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Philosophy101
Posts: 2,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2016 6:33:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2016 4:07:46 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Perhaps science and Genesis concur that the universe was created in six literal days.

According to the General Theory of Relativity space and time are not absolute and uniform; they are relative to a frame of reference. Generally accepted cosmological theory tells us that the time/space continuum has been expanding since the creation of the universe in the "Big Bang". What this means is that the temporal frame of reference of "the beginning" is dramatically different from our temporal frame of reference. From the beginning frame of reference, time has expanded exponentially since the beginning; this relationship would be inverted from our frame of reference.

The General Theory provides a mathematical framework that allows us to quantify the expansion of the space/time continuum relative to our frame of reference; it tells us that each time the universe doubled in time and space, the perception of time is halved from our frame of reference.

Therefore, current scientific theory states that the initial moment when the relationship we refer to with the word "time" began, would have occurred when the dynamics of heat and expansion caused matter to form, that moment is commonly referred to as "quark confinement". The General Theory calculates the initial ratio of time between our frame of reference and the frame of reference of the beginning, to be equal to the ratio between the temperature of quark confinement (10.9 times 10 to the twelfth power Kelvin) to the temperature of the universe today (2.73 degrees Kelvin). Remember that since the beginning, time is expanding exponentially from the beginning frame of reference, and as time proceeds it is contracting exponentially from our frame of reference. Utilizing the algorithmic time calculations of the General Theory we can calculate that a single twenty four hour day, from the frame of reference of the beginning, would have expanded in such a way that it would be measured as roughly eight billion years from today"s frame of reference. A second twenty four hour day would be measured as roughly four billion years, a third as two billion years, a fourth as one billion, a fifth as a half billion, and a sixth as a quarter billion years.

This hypothesis sounds like a lot of malarkey (pardon my French). To start with it sounds like the number 8,000,000,000 is just a made up figure. Secondly it doesn't account for inflation. Thrird why does the doubling happen each day? Fourth if the doubling did happen each day, why isn't it doubling now?

So, from the frame of reference of the beginning, six twenty four hour days, would have expanded in such a way that, from our frame of reference, it would be measured as fifteen and three quarter billion years, roughly the age of the universe as estimated by current Big Bang scientific theory.

So there you go, just like the Bible says, the entire universe was created in six literal days.

I"m no creationist by any stretch, and the Bible is not a science textbook, but there is indeed a remarkable correspondence between what modern science tells us and what the Bible tells us about the creation of physical reality as it pertains to the question of six days versus fifteen plus billion years.

All I can say is that it is very hard to see this remarkable correspondence between modern science and the Genesis creation narrative as coincidence only.

(This isn"t my analysis btw, I am paraphrasing in only a few paragraphs here, the calculations of renowned physicist Gerald Schroeder from his book "The Science of God".

The problem with people that believe in God is they believe that if they believe hard enough they will make it to heaven. If something goes against their beliefs, instead of accepting the difference they simply believe harder. That's when they divide absurd arguments to defend their beliefs; hoping if they can just convince others their belief system will be maintained. Sometimes a person just has to bracket their beliefs and move on, not argue to the point of absurdity.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2016 6:55:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2016 6:33:08 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 12/12/2016 4:07:46 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Perhaps science and Genesis concur that the universe was created in six literal days.

According to the General Theory of Relativity space and time are not absolute and uniform; they are relative to a frame of reference. Generally accepted cosmological theory tells us that the time/space continuum has been expanding since the creation of the universe in the "Big Bang". What this means is that the temporal frame of reference of "the beginning" is dramatically different from our temporal frame of reference. From the beginning frame of reference, time has expanded exponentially since the beginning; this relationship would be inverted from our frame of reference.

The General Theory provides a mathematical framework that allows us to quantify the expansion of the space/time continuum relative to our frame of reference; it tells us that each time the universe doubled in time and space, the perception of time is halved from our frame of reference.

Therefore, current scientific theory states that the initial moment when the relationship we refer to with the word "time" began, would have occurred when the dynamics of heat and expansion caused matter to form, that moment is commonly referred to as "quark confinement". The General Theory calculates the initial ratio of time between our frame of reference and the frame of reference of the beginning, to be equal to the ratio between the temperature of quark confinement (10.9 times 10 to the twelfth power Kelvin) to the temperature of the universe today (2.73 degrees Kelvin). Remember that since the beginning, time is expanding exponentially from the beginning frame of reference, and as time proceeds it is contracting exponentially from our frame of reference. Utilizing the algorithmic time calculations of the General Theory we can calculate that a single twenty four hour day, from the frame of reference of the beginning, would have expanded in such a way that it would be measured as roughly eight billion years from today"s frame of reference. A second twenty four hour day would be measured as roughly four billion years, a third as two billion years, a fourth as one billion, a fifth as a half billion, and a sixth as a quarter billion years.

This hypothesis sounds like a lot of malarkey (pardon my French). To start with it sounds like the number 8,000,000,000 is just a made up figure. Secondly it doesn't account for inflation. Thrird why does the doubling happen each day? Fourth if the doubling did happen each day, why isn't it doubling now?

So, from the frame of reference of the beginning, six twenty four hour days, would have expanded in such a way that, from our frame of reference, it would be measured as fifteen and three quarter billion years, roughly the age of the universe as estimated by current Big Bang scientific theory.

So there you go, just like the Bible says, the entire universe was created in six literal days.

I"m no creationist by any stretch, and the Bible is not a science textbook, but there is indeed a remarkable correspondence between what modern science tells us and what the Bible tells us about the creation of physical reality as it pertains to the question of six days versus fifteen plus billion years.

All I can say is that it is very hard to see this remarkable correspondence between modern science and the Genesis creation narrative as coincidence only.

(This isn"t my analysis btw, I am paraphrasing in only a few paragraphs here, the calculations of renowned physicist Gerald Schroeder from his book "The Science of God".

The problem with people that believe in God is they believe that if they believe hard enough they will make it to heaven. If something goes against their beliefs, instead of accepting the difference they simply believe harder. That's when they divide absurd arguments to defend their beliefs; hoping if they can just convince others their belief system will be maintained. Sometimes a person just has to bracket their beliefs and move on, not argue to the point of absurdity.

The tragedy of it all is that the worldview that they are trying to defend has nothing to do with whether ot not God even exists, it only has to do with the narrow ideology of a scripture that they ascribe to God.

To answer the question of the thread, is God compatible with Science, the answer is that God must be compatible with Science. His creation would be the universe after all and as science is to understand the mechanics of our universe, Science can only reflect the mechanics of God's creation.

That is... 'IF' there is a God.
keithprosser
Posts: 7,994
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2016 7:01:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2016 6:33:08 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
The problem with people that believe in God is they believe that if they believe hard enough they will make it to heaven. If something goes against their beliefs, instead of accepting the difference they simply believe harder. That's when they divide absurd arguments to defend their beliefs; hoping if they can just convince others their belief system will be maintained. Sometimes a person just has to bracket their beliefs and move on, not argue to the point of absurdity.

I wonder... it's very tempting to induldge in amateur psycho-analysis but I have my doubts that it works. I think it's more that people who believe in god - well, they just believe in god. It makes sense to them. I don't think they are frightened of dying, or can't face reality or anything like that. It is quite simply that it seems natural - axiomatic almost - they there is a god.

To such people it is atheism that seems perverse and unnatural - incomprehensible almost, as if atheists were claiming 2+2=5. Of course conversely atheists think it is theists who are claiming 2+2=5 - both lots think the other lot are delusional and not facing upto reality.

Both sides find it hard to believe that the other side is sincere and genuine in their beliefs, but I think we should try to do so in order to understand the true nature of the debate.
Philosophy101
Posts: 2,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2016 9:24:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2016 7:01:56 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 12/12/2016 6:33:08 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
The problem with people that believe in God is they believe that if they believe hard enough they will make it to heaven. If something goes against their beliefs, instead of accepting the difference they simply believe harder. That's when they divide absurd arguments to defend their beliefs; hoping if they can just convince others their belief system will be maintained. Sometimes a person just has to bracket their beliefs and move on, not argue to the point of absurdity.

I wonder... it's very tempting to induldge in amateur psycho-analysis but I have my doubts that it works. I think it's more that people who believe in god - well, they just believe in god. It makes sense to them. I don't think they are frightened of dying, or can't face reality or anything like that. It is quite simply that it seems natural - axiomatic almost - they there is a god.

To such people it is atheism that seems perverse and unnatural - incomprehensible almost, as if atheists were claiming 2+2=5. Of course conversely atheists think it is theists who are claiming 2+2=5 - both lots think the other lot are delusional and not facing upto reality.

Both sides find it hard to believe that the other side is sincere and genuine in their beliefs, but I think we should try to do so in order to understand the true nature of the debate.

I agree it makes sense to them, however they should be able to brzcket their beliefs when it comes to things like evolution and even climate change. That an all powerful dirty created the universe should not be a matter of contoversy, but faith. I don't understand it, but I am willing to tolerate these beliefs if their world view is not wayward.
Philosophy101
Posts: 2,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2016 9:28:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2016 6:55:46 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 12/12/2016 6:33:08 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 12/12/2016 4:07:46 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Perhaps science and Genesis concur that the universe was created in six literal days.

According to the General Theory of Relativity space and time are not absolute and uniform; they are relative to a frame of reference. Generally accepted cosmological theory tells us that the time/space continuum has been expanding since the creation of the universe in the "Big Bang". What this means is that the temporal frame of reference of "the beginning" is dramatically different from our temporal frame of reference. From the beginning frame of reference, time has expanded exponentially since the beginning; this relationship would be inverted from our frame of reference.

The General Theory provides a mathematical framework that allows us to quantify the expansion of the space/time continuum relative to our frame of reference; it tells us that each time the universe doubled in time and space, the perception of time is halved from our frame of reference.

Therefore, current scientific theory states that the initial moment when the relationship we refer to with the word "time" began, would have occurred when the dynamics of heat and expansion caused matter to form, that moment is commonly referred to as "quark confinement". The General Theory calculates the initial ratio of time between our frame of reference and the frame of reference of the beginning, to be equal to the ratio between the temperature of quark confinement (10.9 times 10 to the twelfth power Kelvin) to the temperature of the universe today (2.73 degrees Kelvin). Remember that since the beginning, time is expanding exponentially from the beginning frame of reference, and as time proceeds it is contracting exponentially from our frame of reference. Utilizing the algorithmic time calculations of the General Theory we can calculate that a single twenty four hour day, from the frame of reference of the beginning, would have expanded in such a way that it would be measured as roughly eight billion years from today"s frame of reference. A second twenty four hour day would be measured as roughly four billion years, a third as two billion years, a fourth as one billion, a fifth as a half billion, and a sixth as a quarter billion years.

This hypothesis sounds like a lot of malarkey (pardon my French). To start with it sounds like the number 8,000,000,000 is just a made up figure. Secondly it doesn't account for inflation. Thrird why does the doubling happen each day? Fourth if the doubling did happen each day, why isn't it doubling now?

So, from the frame of reference of the beginning, six twenty four hour days, would have expanded in such a way that, from our frame of reference, it would be measured as fifteen and three quarter billion years, roughly the age of the universe as estimated by current Big Bang scientific theory.

So there you go, just like the Bible says, the entire universe was created in six literal days.

I"m no creationist by any stretch, and the Bible is not a science textbook, but there is indeed a remarkable correspondence between what modern science tells us and what the Bible tells us about the creation of physical reality as it pertains to the question of six days versus fifteen plus billion years.

All I can say is that it is very hard to see this remarkable correspondence between modern science and the Genesis creation narrative as coincidence only.

(This isn"t my analysis btw, I am paraphrasing in only a few paragraphs here, the calculations of renowned physicist Gerald Schroeder from his book "The Science of God".

The problem with people that believe in God is they believe that if they believe hard enough they will make it to heaven. If something goes against their beliefs, instead of accepting the difference they simply believe harder. That's when they divide absurd arguments to defend their beliefs; hoping if they can just convince others their belief system will be maintained. Sometimes a person just has to bracket their beliefs and move on, not argue to the point of absurdity.

The tragedy of it all is that the worldview that they are trying to defend has nothing to do with whether ot not God even exists, it only has to do with the narrow ideology of a scripture that they ascribe to God.

To answer the question of the thread, is God compatible with Science, the answer is that God must be compatible with Science. His creation would be the universe after all and as science is to understand the mechanics of our universe, Science can only reflect the mechanics of God's creation.

That is... 'IF' there is a God.

Understanding God's creation would seem to be what science does on this world view. However, denying evidence that is clearly correct almost seems heretical to the notion of intellectual honesty. Having a belief is one thing, damning all the evidence perceived (whether rightly or wrongly) against it is another.
keithprosser
Posts: 7,994
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2016 9:59:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2016 9:24:56 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
... I am willing to tolerate these beliefs if their world view is not wayward.
That may well be what the other side feels about your beliefs and world-view...
Philosophy101
Posts: 2,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2016 6:11:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2016 9:59:46 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 12/12/2016 9:24:56 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
... I am willing to tolerate these beliefs if their world view is not wayward.
That may well be what the other side feels about your beliefs and world-view...

I could imagine so, but I would really prefer there wasn't two sides to everything. Note how nobody wants to distinguish themselves anymore: two sides to abortion, two to gay rights, two to evolution, two to climate change. Not only can we not agree if waffles are appropriate for breakfast, but we divide ourselves on two sides. "Waffles are a healthy way to start your day, I like mine with a little syrup personally," one says. The other cries, "You're a raving lunatic, have you gone mad; waffles belong on the dinner plate." Where is the voice of reason telling us to eat them for lunch or even brunch (I know a radical).
Marshok
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2016 8:15:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your post deals more with philosophy than science, so I think this point maybe should have gone in the philosophy or religion sections, but I'll go ahead and tackle this point because I have an amateur love for philosophy.

What you are talking about here is the Problem of Evil (PoE) which deals with if there is a god then why does evil exist. The first formulation of the PoE traces back to Epicurus c. 200 BCE (before Christianity, notably). His argument, just in case you are not familiar with it is as follows:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent."
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?"
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God

Theists typically respond (as you did) with a variation of the Free Will Defense. The typical atheist response is to note that free will only account for moral evil, not natural evil. Why does god allow flesh eating bacteria to eat the eyes out of babies? Why does god allow other diseases that spread and affect people regardless of their moral actions? Why does god allow hurricanes, floods, landslides, earthquakes, tornadoes, and tsunamis that devastate and kill thousands? Even assuming that every human capable of moral action is somehow guilty of such retribution that says nothing about infants and toddlers who are incapable of making moral decisions (and therefore are incapable of evil). Why are they allowed to be tortured and slaughtered by the thousands every year by natural causes?

However, that response, while fairly strong, still leaves the theist with some wiggle room to try and blame natural evil on some ancient humans and so somehow it's still all humanities fault that natural evil is allowed. I am going to eliminate that wiggle room. Allow me to reformulate the Epicurean Argument:

1. Any being worthy of the title or position of "god" must possess the attributes of omnipotence (all-powerful), omnibenevolence (all-good, must not tolerate evil), and omniscience (all-knowing).
2. Such a being would know how to create a universe with agents who possess free will that would not result in evil (due to omniscience), would be capable of creating such a universe (due to omnipotence), and would choose to create such a universe over one that results in evil (due to omnibenevolence).
3. Evil exists in our universe.
4. Therefore, if our universe was created (which I do not grant), then it was not created by a being worthy of the title or position of god, and so is not worthy of being the assumed ultimate moral authority, worthy of worship, or of being followed as in religion.

It is fair to add omniscience as an attribute of god because many theists including Christian apologists include that as an attribute of god.

Some savvy theists, recognizing the inherit problems in assigning omnipotence, omnipresence, and/or omniscience to god either try to redefine the terms or scale back their claims. Usually this results in terming god as being a "maximally great" being. God is not omnipotent, just the most powerful being possible (though the extents of god's power are never really defined or explained). He is not omniscient, just really smart (again, not really clarified or quantified). To this I reply, like Epicurus, why call him god? But that is not the only problem for theists. As you are coming from the Christian point of view let's examine the Christian story in brief.

God created the angels, among them the archangel Lucifer. Lucifer rebelled against god, lost the battle, and so was cast down along with the 1/3 of angels who sided with him. Lucifer tricks Eve into eating the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil against god's command, and she gives it to Adam to eat (which he does) and so god curses humanity, the animals, and plants with various forms of suffering. This is generally considered the theological reason for the existence of evil on Earth. Christians also like to say that they have "read the end of the book" and so "know" that at some vague point in the future (though, notably, every generation of Christians in the history of Christianity has claimed that they or their children will see this time) there will be a time of great suffering (the apocalypse) after which there will be a final showdown between god and Satan/Lucifer and that ultimately god will renew (or create a new, depending on interpretation) heaven and Earth which will be a utopia. Good will reign forever, all the bad people and angels will be locked in hell forever, there will be no suffering, no evil; everything will be perfect forever.

Yes, I left Jesus out of that account, but if you can't show that god exists then you can't claim that he immaculately impregnated a Jewish virgin with himself. Further, the existence or non-existence of Jesus will not be relevant to my points regarding the Christian mythos.

The last portion of the story raises particular problems for the Christian as related to the problem of evil. The Christian is claiming that god knows how to create a utopia with no evil. Why didn't god just start there and skip the whole flawed angels and Earth thing? Instead, god deliberately created a flawed world, knowing it would result in evil. Therefore god created evil, and is evil. Let me state that plainly: YHWH, as described by the Bible, is deliberately, consciously, and willfully evil.

That is not the only problem. Let's assume this utopia does come about. Will god allow humans and angels to retain free will? If god does remove free will, then why allow it in the first place? After all if you take an agent with free will then remove it, that agent ceases to exist and is replace by an automaton that just vaguely resembles the agent. If god is not going to remove free will, then the Christian is claiming that god knows how to create a world, with agents possessing free will, that will not result in evil. Again, why not just start there? If god is capable of that then the evils of this world are entirely unnecessary.

Perhaps god is simply not capable of the prophetic powers ascribed to him in the Bible. Maybe the end of Revelations is just what he hopes will happen (and perhaps has already been thwarted by Lucifer?). Maybe when god created Lucifer, a third of the angels, and Adam and Eve he didn't know they would turn out evil. In that case his powers and intelligence seem fairly weak and I am left wondering why he demands the title and position of "god;" and not just "a" god but the only god, so much so that "YHWH" and "god" are practically synonymous. If this is the case then Christians have a LOT of work cut out to explain why YHWH should be considered a moral authority and worthy of unquestioning loyalty, obedience, and worship; and in this case Revelations along with other Biblical "prophecies" are mere speculation.

All-in-all, not to be rude, but I find your three sentence treatment of the PoE to be a little bit lacking. If you found my (admittedly abbreviated) "story" of the scriptures to not correspond to your personal theology then let me know. You only stated that you are coming from the Christian view so I mainly used mainline protestant/evangelical theology which I am most familiar with and seems to be the most common.
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2016 9:15:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2016 6:33:08 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 12/12/2016 4:07:46 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Perhaps science and Genesis concur that the universe was created in six literal days.

According to the General Theory of Relativity space and time are not absolute and uniform; they are relative to a frame of reference. Generally accepted cosmological theory tells us that the time/space continuum has been expanding since the creation of the universe in the "Big Bang". What this means is that the temporal frame of reference of "the beginning" is dramatically different from our temporal frame of reference. From the beginning frame of reference, time has expanded exponentially since the beginning; this relationship would be inverted from our frame of reference.

The General Theory provides a mathematical framework that allows us to quantify the expansion of the space/time continuum relative to our frame of reference; it tells us that each time the universe doubled in time and space, the perception of time is halved from our frame of reference.

Therefore, current scientific theory states that the initial moment when the relationship we refer to with the word "time" began, would have occurred when the dynamics of heat and expansion caused matter to form, that moment is commonly referred to as "quark confinement". The General Theory calculates the initial ratio of time between our frame of reference and the frame of reference of the beginning, to be equal to the ratio between the temperature of quark confinement (10.9 times 10 to the twelfth power Kelvin) to the temperature of the universe today (2.73 degrees Kelvin). Remember that since the beginning, time is expanding exponentially from the beginning frame of reference, and as time proceeds it is contracting exponentially from our frame of reference. Utilizing the algorithmic time calculations of the General Theory we can calculate that a single twenty four hour day, from the frame of reference of the beginning, would have expanded in such a way that it would be measured as roughly eight billion years from today"s frame of reference. A second twenty four hour day would be measured as roughly four billion years, a third as two billion years, a fourth as one billion, a fifth as a half billion, and a sixth as a quarter billion years.

This hypothesis sounds like a lot of malarkey (pardon my French). To start with it sounds like the number 8,000,000,000 is just a made up figure. Secondly it doesn't account for inflation. Thrird why does the doubling happen each day? Fourth if the doubling did happen each day, why isn't it doubling now?

So, from the frame of reference of the beginning, six twenty four hour days, would have expanded in such a way that, from our frame of reference, it would be measured as fifteen and three quarter billion years, roughly the age of the universe as estimated by current Big Bang scientific theory.

So there you go, just like the Bible says, the entire universe was created in six literal days.

I"m no creationist by any stretch, and the Bible is not a science textbook, but there is indeed a remarkable correspondence between what modern science tells us and what the Bible tells us about the creation of physical reality as it pertains to the question of six days versus fifteen plus billion years.

All I can say is that it is very hard to see this remarkable correspondence between modern science and the Genesis creation narrative as coincidence only.

(This isn"t my analysis btw, I am paraphrasing in only a few paragraphs here, the calculations of renowned physicist Gerald Schroeder from his book "The Science of God".

The problem with people that believe in God is they believe that if they believe hard enough they will make it to heaven. If something goes against their beliefs, instead of accepting the difference they simply believe harder. That's when they divide absurd arguments to defend their beliefs; hoping if they can just convince others their belief system will be maintained. Sometimes a person just has to bracket their beliefs and move on, not argue to the point of absurdity.

This is a common generalization for some reason, which in many cases is a crude misconception. I almost feel as though people who believe commonly perceive a different message entirely from people who conclude a belief is flawed by an obviously exclusive thought process to present believers.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 6,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 2:52:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM, KCG wrote:
I'd originally written a very long piece taking many points and putting them together. Instead, if anyone is interested, I'd like to handle one point at a time until we come to a mutual agreement, and then the next point can be raised.



Starting from a Christian point of view. Using logic, we can conclude that God and Science can exist together.


Point 1 - God's Nature

Most Christians claim that there is evil in the world because we have free will, and the afterlife is the place where balance is created so that both qualities are present. A fair God would not allow bad people to get away with their actions, but a good God would not take away free will.


Pro: To be fair and good, God has to step back and allow full free will.

How do you determine that any prospective god and or creator would care about or allow free will? More specifically how have you determined that the christian deity specifically would care about or allow free will?
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Vanamali
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2017 2:23:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM, KCG wrote:
No, I don't think so - God is based on faith, belief, whereas Science deals with facts. It is like a math teacher asking a math question and you answer "the result" or "stuff" - that is not what the teacher is looking for
You can't be a scientist if you can't come with facts to back up one's theory or claim
CookieMonster9
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2017 3:47:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 12/15/2017 2:23:55 AM, Vanamali wrote:
At 12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM, KCG wrote:
No, I don't think so - God is based on faith, belief, whereas Science deals with facts. It is like a math teacher asking a math question and you answer "the result" or "stuff" - that is not what the teacher is looking for
You can't be a scientist if you can't come with facts to back up one's theory or claim

I do agree with you, but what this is saying is that science can't be used as a medium as to why God does not exists, that science has the ability to co-exist with the new scientific information that we have.

Even though the theist idea of God is based on faith and belief I do believe that we can look to science and the way the universe is formed to come up with theories and ideas as to why a God would exist or not exist. For example one of the greatest challenges theists and atheists have to explain is for the atheist how was the universe created specifically for us (the odds of this universe sprouting into being is 10^66 power) and for theists how was God created and the idea of God being created. So we can use science to explain things such as the existence of a God.
School doesn't give me the full knowledge that I wish to receive, that is why I am here. I wish to discuss topics with people that will strengthen eachother's minds and in the end make us smarter than we were before.

-CookieMonster9
TylerLamb
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2017 9:58:00 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 12/15/2017 2:23:55 AM, Vanamali wrote:
At 12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM, KCG wrote:
No, I don't think so - God is based on faith, belief, whereas Science deals with facts. It is like a math teacher asking a math question and you answer "the result" or "stuff" - that is not what the teacher is looking for
You can't be a scientist if you can't come with facts to back up one's theory or claim

I get what you're saying, but I don't think you fully understand the difference between science and religion. Science cannot offer us answers, only observations. These observations may answer questions some people have, but it doesn't change the fact that all our scientific knowledge is observation. Religion, on the other hand, offers answers. Whether or not you accept these answers is a different story, but that is the fundamental difference between science and religion.
As for your claim that science and religion are incompatible based on the evidence standard, you'll find that the evidence actually favors the existence of God. The universe exists, we can agree on that. There are two possible reasons why it exists: either the universe has always existed, or there was a point in time where the universe came into existence. Modern science agrees that the universe did have a beginning, so there was a point in time where the universe came into existence. This event is commonly referred to as the Big Bang. If the universe didn't always exist, that means it didn't have to exist. If the universe didn't have to exist, that means something happened that caused the universe to come to fruition. Now we must ask, what caused the Big Bang? If the universe didn't exist before the Big Bang, nothing physical could have caused it as our universe didn't exist at the time. This suggests that something beyond our universe caused the Big Bang, that something being God.
Tyler
Vanamali
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2017 3:46:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 12/17/2017 9:58:00 AM, TylerLamb wrote:
At 12/15/2017 2:23:55 AM, Vanamali wrote:
ying, but I don't think you fully understand the difference between science and religion. Science cannot offer us answers, only observations. These observations may answer questions some people have, but it doesn't change the fact that all our scientific knowledge is observation. Religion, on the other hand, offers answers. Whether or not you accept these answers is a different story, but that is the fundamental difference between science and religion.
As for your claim that science and religion are incompatible based on the evidence standard, you'll find that the evidence actually favors the existence of God. The universe exists, we can agree on that. There are two possible reasons why it exists: caused the Big Bang? If the universe didn't exist before the Big Bang, nothing physical could have caused it as our universe didn't exist at the time. This suggests that something beyond our universe caused the Big Bang, that something being God.

God of the Gaps - this is an old idea - stick God where Science does not yet have all the answers - God keeps retreating back as our knowledge expands. Just because we don't know doesn't mean it is God. Lack of knowledge = God?

So who made God? How did this powerful being with all this incredible powers pop into existence from nowhere? A bigger God?

As for Science not having answers - how come when you get sick you go to the hospital? And if doctors cannot find what is wrong with you, do you say, it is God? Do you not expect them to find an answer? Whether it is with your job, your car, the flights you take, your health, law and order - everything that makes this life enjoyable is thanks to Science - not religion

Religion does not have answers - all it has are feel-good stories - they tell you that what you want to hear - a nice Sugar Daddy is waiting for your death, then will nicely forgive all your mistakes and then you will get to sit on your lazy butt and do nothing for eternity? Really, the ability of religion to brainwash the best of us is amazing.

God, the Santa Klaus for Adults
SecularMerlin
Posts: 6,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2017 11:48:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 12/17/2017 9:58:00 AM, TylerLamb wrote:
At 12/15/2017 2:23:55 AM, Vanamali wrote:
At 12/11/2016 7:30:16 AM, KCG wrote:
No, I don't think so - God is based on faith, belief, whereas Science deals with facts. It is like a math teacher asking a math question and you answer "the result" or "stuff" - that is not what the teacher is looking for
You can't be a scientist if you can't come with facts to back up one's theory or claim

I get what you're saying, but I don't think you fully understand the difference between science and religion. Science cannot offer us answers, only observations. These observations may answer questions some people have, but it doesn't change the fact that all our scientific knowledge is observation. Religion, on the other hand, offers answers. Whether or not you accept these answers is a different story, but that is the fundamental difference between science and religion.
As for your claim that science and religion are incompatible based on the evidence standard, you'll find that the evidence actually favors the existence of God. The universe exists, we can agree on that. There are two possible reasons why it exists: either the universe has always existed, or there was a point in time where the universe came into existence. Modern science agrees that the universe did have a beginning, so there was a point in time where the universe came into existence. This event is commonly referred to as the Big Bang. If the universe didn't always exist, that means it didn't have to exist. If the universe didn't have to exist, that means something happened that caused the universe to come to fruition. Now we must ask, what caused the Big Bang? If the universe didn't exist before the Big Bang, nothing physical could have caused it as our universe didn't exist at the time. This suggests that something beyond our universe caused the Big Bang, that something being God.

Let us presume reverse causality and non-sequential causality have been ruled out. Let us further presume that matter existing before the big bang in the form of a vastly dence extremely tiny speck of singularity is likewise ruled put. Let us presume also that non-singularity events (irregular black holes) are not currently being postulated as possible.

Now we have already made enough presumptions at this point to cut ourselves on Occam's Razer in a way no amount of T.P. can fix, and you still have a long way to go to get to "therefore god exists". And further still to get to "therefore specific god exists.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol