My proof for God. Critiques please

[wheels10]

Of course not. To believe in a soul, I would have to believe in the supernatural. Science is an heuristic method. To regard it as a deity would be patently absurd.

god (gd)
n.

1. God
   a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
   b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
   4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
4. A very handsome man.
5. A powerful ruler or despot.

Since you place your entire trust in science, I would view science as your God.
So you believe that human beings do not have souls…wow. How does science explain thoughts, emotions, imagination, personalities, free will, moral nature? Human beings are more than just physical bodies.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Since you place your entire trust in science, I would view science as your God.

How can a methodology that I have mastery of be my God? Scientific experiments are controlled by humans, by scientists. They are simply part of a methodology for verifiying ideas.

So you believe that human beings do not have souls…wow. How does science explain thoughts, emotions, imagination, personalities, free will, moral nature? Human beings are more than just physical bodies.

I refer you to the debate I’m having with Tonyrey on this very thread. I see no evidence nor any reason to believe anything other than that physical bodies are precisely what human beings are. I think that just because at the present time we do not have an explanation with no gaps, that does not preclude the possibility of a physical explanation. Indeed, the science of complexity theory illustrates a natural explanation for the human mind.

if you want me to give my opinion, these things you mentioned are all survival traits. Nothing more.

 

[tonyrey]

If self-motivation does not presuppose a self it is a misnomer. Why is the term “self” used if the self is not the source of motivation? If it originates elsewhere then the source must lie elsewhere…

You still have not even explained what a “natural” self is - or could be… All you have said is that it is inside the cranium.

Suicide bombers believe earnestly but that does not mean they are right. Your earnest belief does not appear to have a sound foundation…

I think you might want to take heed of your own reprimand here, since you are the one who is making claims to knowledge while I am hedging my bets.

I am not making any claims to knowledge but simply pointing out the inconsistencies and gaps in your explanations.

1. If consciousness, intuition, reasoning, evaluation, freedom of choice and decision-making are entirely explained by electrico-chemical activity it follows inexorably that human beings are purposeless robots without the power of self-motivation.

How does that follow?

Are you acquainted with any impersonal electrico-chemical processes which are purposeful and self-motivating?

It is human conceit to believe human beings are the sole authors of goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love…

It seems more likely to me that appreciation of beauty, significance, meaning and so on and so forth are evolved survival traits.

Survival traits which exist solely in our minds? How could belief in goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love enable us to survive if they were figments of our imagination? Do you think self-deception and illusions are advantageous? A fool’s paradise is a prelude to hell on earth!

1. If we didn’t have free will we couldn’t choose what to think and our thoughts would be unreliable. You know how often instincts lead people astray. Our thoughts would be in the same category…

Newsflash. We are unreliable. It is only too common for people to have mental health problems and even breakdowns.

Do you attribute the success of science to unreliable thoughts? If your thoughts are unreliable why do you bother to defend them?

2.You have said all our choices are due to electrico-chemical activity - which is obviously predetermined…

That does not mean that our thoughts are predetermined. Genetic mutations are in effect random events in that you can never predict where and when they will happen and with what effect. They also happen according to very specific laws in Chemistry and Physics.

Our thoughts would be unreliable in either case - whether they are predetermined or indeterminate - because we wouldn’t have any control over them.

Anyway the simple fact remains that you are unwilling to face the logical consequences of materialism when confronted with its implications…

I am quite willing to laugh in the face of the logical consequences of materialism when confronted with them. One experimental test is worth a thousand expert opinions.

Can you specify an experimental test which demonstrates that we can or cannot choose what to think? Or that all our thoughts and choices are or are not due to electrico-chemical activity? I’m afraid your experimental tests are very limited in their scope. They tell us nothing about the things in life that really matter…

Emergence is an impressive term but it explains precisely nothing. How and why do natural phenomena become more than the sum of their physical parts? Yet again you have no rational basis for your belief if you don’t know…

If you perhaps looked it up, or looked up complexity theory?

Where do your experimental tests come in here? Can you reproduce the development of human traits?

Absolutely! That is our starting point. What remains to be ascertained is how it occurs and how it originated.

It may not be possible to explain that in the way you appear to need.

Why not? It looks as if your model of reality is inadequate…

You are already taking it for granted that we have a concept of the future. Yet physical systems have no such concept - or of the past for that matter. They are firmly stuck in the here and now. There is no room for the future where electrico-chemical activity is concerned…

I can assure you that according to physics we are moving into the future at precisely sixty minutes per hour.

You are missing the point. Unlike us physical systems have no concept of the future or past…

There are so many holes in your explanation it amounts to a “science of the gaps” theory!

I’m not offering a grand unified explanation of everything. There will never be zero gaps. Never.

Your reference to “evolved survival traits” belies your words…

We can only try to plug the ones we can plug. It seems to me that chipping away at the gaps by investigation is a far more honest approach than just sticking God in them.

You are presupposing that scientific investigation is the most important and fundamental form of investigation… What leads you to that conclusion?
BTW Why do you value honesty? Because it is an evolved survival trait? If our thoughts are unreliable it makes little difference anyway!

 

[wheels10]

How can a methodology that I have mastery of be my God? Scientific experiments are controlled by humans, by scientists. They are simply part of a methodology for verifiying ideas.

I refer you to the debate I’m having with Tonyrey on this very thread. I see no evidence nor any reason to believe anything other than that physical bodies are precisely what human beings are. I think that just because at the present time we do not have an explanation with no gaps, that does not preclude the possibility of a physical explanation. Indeed, the science of complexity theory illustrates a natural explanation for the human mind.

if you want me to give my opinion, these things you mentioned are all survival traits. Nothing more.

Science is your God since you appear to value and trust it more than anything else in your life. And I’m not saying that science is bad. It is able to many times discover and provide a limited explanation to how things work in this world. However, if you keep on asking the question, why does it work this way?, you will always come to a point where science is unable to provide an answer.

So you say that thoughts, emotions, imagination, personalities, free will, moral nature are survival traits? Does not a person that commits suicide have these traits? How is committing suicide a survival trait? Another example would be where one individual is willing to give up their life in order to save another person’s life. How is this a survival trait?

 

[Moonstruck888]

You still have not even explained what a “natural” self is - or could be… All you have said is that it is inside the cranium.

I’ve already told you that I can’t definitively explain that. Neither can you, nor anyone. It is still inexplicable at the moment.

I am not making any claims to knowledge but simply pointing out the inconsistencies and gaps in your explanations.

Yeah, and filling the gaps in yours with God. You must be a very clever man.

Are you acquainted with any impersonal electrico-chemical processes which are purposeful and self-motivating?

Yes. Biological life.

Survival traits which exist solely in our minds? How could belief in goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love enable us to survive if they were figments of our imagination? Do you think self-deception and illusions are advantageous? A fool’s paradise is a prelude to hell on earth!

This is just flagrantly sentimental drivel. Slap a flowery label on a process and then gross hyperbole in the form of suddenly slashing it down to the level of a figment. If you can’t keep this on an intellectual level, I don’t see how we can get anywhere with this.

Our thoughts would be unreliable in either case - whether they are predetermined or indeterminate - because we wouldn’t have any control over them.

What makes you think we have no control over them. If the process is aware of itself, it follows that there is a level of control. You do agree we are self aware?

Can you specify an experimental test which demonstrates that we can or cannot choose what to think? Or that all our thoughts and choices are or are not due to electrico-chemical activity? I’m afraid your experimental tests are very limited in their scope. They tell us nothing about the things in life that really matter…

That is because neuroscience is not my field of expertise. I have never pretended that it was. You on the other hand seem to think that if I don’t know everything, it follows that I must know nothing. Do you know everything Tony?

Where do your experimental tests come in here? Can you reproduce the development of human traits?

Very easily. All I would have to do is impregnate a female volunteer.

Why not? It looks as if your model of reality is inadequate…

The difference is that I know that and accept it. I at least don’t just fill the gaps in my knowledge with a mysterious and unaccountable God.

You are missing the point. Unlike us physical systems have no concept of the future or past…

That is a non sequitir.

You are presupposing that scientific investigation is the most important and fundamental form of investigation… What leads you to that conclusion?

It is the only fundamental form of investigation known to human kind. One day if we evolove beyond our current limits we may have a better one. At the moment it will have to do I’m afraid and you can like it or lump it.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Science is your God since you appear to value and trust it more than anything else in your life.

Calling science a god implies an emotional and sentimental connection that does not and cannot exist. I feel nothing towards science. It is simply a method. For me to worship science as a god would like you falling madly in love with your Intel PC.

And I’m not saying that science is bad. It is able to many times discover and provide a limited explanation to how things work in this world. However, if you keep on asking the question, why does it work this way?, you will always come to a point where science is unable to provide an answer.

And you will always come to a point where plugging the gaps with God is a convenient and easy opt out claus, but that does not alter the fact that it is inconsistent with reason.

So you say that thoughts, emotions, imagination, personalities, free will, moral nature are survival traits? Does not a person that commits suicide have these traits? How is committing suicide a survival trait? Another example would be where one individual is willing to give up their life in order to save another person’s life. How is this a survival trait?

People who committ suicide tend to have mental health problems. People who sacrifice themselves tend to do so to safeguard others. While the former is abberant behaviour, the survival value of the latter is obvious.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve already told you that I can’t definitively explain that. Neither can you, nor anyone. It is still inexplicable at the moment.

Yeah, and filling the gaps in yours with God. You must be a very clever man.

Yes. Biological life.

This is just flagrantly sentimental drivel. Slap a flowery label on a process and then gross hyperbole in the form of suddenly slashing it down to the level of a figment. If you can’t keep this on an intellectual level, I don’t see how we can get anywhere with this.

What makes you think we have no control over them. If the process is aware of itself, it follows that there is a level of control. You do agree we are self aware?

That is because neuroscience is not my field of expertise. I have never pretended that it was. You on the other hand seem to think that if I don’t know everything, it follows that I must know nothing. Do you know everything Tony?

Very easily. All I would have to do is impregnate a female volunteer.

The difference is that I know that and accept it. I at least don’t just fill the gaps in my knowledge with a mysterious and unaccountable God.

That is a non sequitir.

It is the only fundamental form of investigation known to human kind. One day if we evolove beyond our current limits we may have a better one. At the moment it will have to do I’m afraid and you can like it or lump it.

Your** irrational** invective is not worth bothering with…

 

[Moonstruck888]

Your** irrational** invective is not worth bothering with…

It’s not my fault if you can’t cut it.

 

[curtish1947]

That depends upon the definition of God you choose. If you are referring to the God of The Catholic Church, well then, here I am. Your test is finished.

An omniscient and omnipotent entity who created the known universe, and mankind, such as the God adopted by most popular belief systems cannot exist.

Hi,
Thank you for responding.
I have read and hopefully understand your post.
May I ask, what do you mean by you are the enemy of the enemies…
(If I were to guess, there are too many possiblities, so if you’d help please.)
I do apologize and it may be needed. I am thrilled to understand the philosopical content as possibly being the philosopical communities, way of thinking. I am not a philosopher, but would love to be one, if I had the time left to me. It is a choice for sure, yet to date, other than glean and use the many (Three) products and gift, (Math, Logic, and the questions of clarity in all areas of endeavor, respectively.), I have not had the need, (Maybe now I will), up to now to study the various schools and ideas within. That is my apology. I hope, I have not disqualified myself, from this forum, but, will take any returing statements seriously. If I am not qualified, I will exit, with thanks for your time.
Now, if I had asked people, your restated question, I would have my answer as you have stated. That is not my question, but it could be, if the subject were changed to Catholicism and Holy Roman Catholic beliefs.
I just mean it as it is stated. Can you, and you would be the first, say a few things. One is there is no possibility of a God, in your view, without using other people’s definition of God. Let me go on.
You have a definition, I hope, of a diety. You have lived. You seem to be educated. In all of what you see and what you know, and of what you have done, can you state, as you might already have, that there is no possibility of your’s or anyone’s idea of a God, existing? That is more of the question.
For me it is personal interest. I have never met a true atheist, and that may be over. I have always wanted to know, or meet one. They are for me a particularly interesting group from at least the adherrants, that I have known. What is wonderful about them, is their honesty, and unwillingness to accept someone elses opinion, or to put someone else’s correct experience or data down.
Morally the ones I have met are, what Christians aspire to be.

I will venture a question, expecting your positive response, that you are a true atheist. Are you merely waiting for proof? That is my guess. Or, if the proof for you, if it were a proof to you would you switch to what the proof proved. And, yes I am talking about, if this to you, hypothetical God appeared to you and said something like:
"Hi. Its me. Yeah, I’m the guy who used refused to believe in without proof. I like that! Most of these other guys, unlike you, will believe anything, as long as it suits their needs. As a result, lots of lies are told about me. So, now, how and what would you like to know or have me do, so you can know, that I am Real, and still go about your daily business. "
I have guessed. Am I at all close?

Quote: An omniscient and omnipotent entity who created the known universe, and mankind, such as the God adopted by most popular belief systems cannot exist.

If this is restated as:
“An entity who created the known universe, and mankind.”, could you still add, cannot exist, as I suspect you wouldn’t.
Your issue, I suspect (because I haven’t asked you yet and I hate waiting) , is you are tired of all the false claims, and physics and philosophy help to quiet the ever noisy comments that science proves wrong.
I imagine (same reason as earlier) your use of Philosophy, is also instrumental in proving the falseness of those who are wrong.
How’s that? (Sorry, I couldn’t wait to ask rather than make a guess.)

That is also, my position, yet it is not a delight. Proving one wrong is not a delight, Being proven wrong, for me is more pleasurable. It is because, then what I know, is ever closer to being totally (An impossibility typically) right. It is a goal. It is not an obsession, but it was at one time. I hated being incorrect in my knowlege. I still do.
So, Mr. G, doth thou request my exit, as being unqualified? I will listen. Or, Mr. G, will you help me to learn from this site and put up with the mistakes of a neophyte?
curtish1947

 

[greylorn]

…
So, Mr. G, doth thou request my exit, as being unqualified? I will listen. Or, Mr. G, will you help me to learn from this site and put up with the mistakes of a neophyte?
curtish1947

Reply to Post 27-403, omitted for space/time constraints.

That last paragraph was on the ridiculous side pretentious fawning, so we don’t need to repeat such nonsense. Otherwise, an interesting query. I’ll figure that your tendency to circle around the point is part of your philosophy training. I’ll reply to the most relevant parts of this, and you may query further.

I love neophytes, being one and having been one.

Advice: don’t become a philosopher. With a few exceptions, IMO they are a bunch of pretentious nitwits whose notion of an accomplishment is hiring someone to take out their garbage. Don’t learn to bs. Just learn as much as you can, put it together as best you can, create your own ideas, and put them out in the world. Suspect everything you learn, and every brilliant idea you invent. Most will be wrong, but as you note, each leads you closer to something more interesting. I like your attitude.

If you want to learn about the universe, study math and physics, plus engineering, which is what keeps the physicists honest. Why? The physical universe is the only Bible you can be certain was written by the Creator, or Creators, of the universe, rather than by a bunch of humans with a religious agenda to promote.

Checking out the little tag lines beneath each post will sometimes tell you the philosophical orientation of the poster. In my case, you’ll want to fire up a dictionary. Never read or write without one.

Rather than worry about my credentials or depend upon anyone else’s, just pay attention. Pretend that I was but recently released from prison after spending 50 years moving rocks from one end of the yard to the other. Assume that everyone posting to CAF is a pretentious nit whose bar buddies won’t listen to him anymore, and who dons credentials and appears here to reiterate some mindless blather in hopes of being taken seriously, because his wife won’t and he doesn’t tip the bartender very well, and his pets count on him to put the dog food in the cat dish more often than not. You’ll be right more often than not. (And there are a few thoughtful posters here.)

If you’re not one of the clowns, then don’t worry about your personal qualifications. Asking honest questions about things you’d really like to know is how Galileo got started. I know some Ph.d scientists who cannot do that, and are wretched scientists. But, tenure rules.

My signature line, “The enemy of the enemies of your beliefs,” is my own paraphrase of the quote, “The enemy of your enemy is your friend.”

I am no longer a Catholic, but real world evidence has left me unable to accept atheism. Its explanations for the beginnings of things are absurd. I’ve checked into other religions, and found their fundamental metaphysics equally silly. So, I invented my own explanations for how the universe works. They are probably wrong, but they are consistent with all available data, including scientific data and spiritual stuff, and are surprisingly (even to me) logical.

As a Catholic, your enemy is Atheism. This is a powerful belief system which is about to take over the United States government and ultimately the entire world. It already owns
the important sections of Asia. Since I am an enemy of atheism, but not an enemy of Catholicism (not believing its dogma does not make me an enemy of that dogma), I am a friend of the Catholic Church, by default. And, the Church planted my roots.

I’ll worship alongside anyone, but, my style. I don’t genuflect in front of statues, or bow to Mecca in deference to some ex-thief, but I’ll serve mass or light a Menorah. But when I look out at the Milky Way on a clear summer night, the first thought that comes is the awesomeness of its Creator.

I work from evidence and logic. I’ve no doubt that we live in a created universe. Nor do I have any doubt that every concept mankind has ever devised about the nature and intent of the Creators has been dead wrong. It is time to fix that, else the atheists will win by default.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Whoa, long post. I’ll respond to a snippet here:

"Advice: don’t become a philosopher. With a few exceptions, IMO they are a bunch of pretentious nitwits whose notion of an accomplishment is hiring someone to take out their garbage. Don’t learn to bs. Just learn as much as you can, put it together as best you can, create your own ideas, and put them out in the world. Suspect everything you learn, and every brilliant idea you invent. Most will be wrong, but as you note, each leads you closer to something more interesting. I like your attitude. "

For the record, a PROPER Philosopher does just that.

Whether most modern day Philosophers actually DO that is a matter of debate.

 

[wheels10]

Calling science a god implies an emotional and sentimental connection that does not and cannot exist. I feel nothing towards science. It is simply a method. For me to worship science as a god would like you falling madly in love with your Intel PC.

Is there anything that you would trust above science?

And you will always come to a point where plugging the gaps with God is a convenient and easy opt out claus, but that does not alter the fact that it is inconsistent with reason.

Anytime science discovers an explanation for certain behavior, new questions always arise. Given your observation of science discoveries, can you honestly tell me that science will ever explain a single thing without any new questions? Now this does not mean that research [in accordance to God’s law] should not be conducted in order to learn new things about the world around us. When science discovers something new, what it has discovered is a tiny piece to the infinite puzzle of God’s creation.

People who committ suicide tend to have mental health problems. People who sacrifice themselves tend to do so to safeguard others. While the former is abberant behaviour, the survival value of the latter is obvious.

What causes one person to decide to give up their life in order to save another?

 

[greylorn]

Whoa, long post. I’ll respond to a snippet here:

"Advice: don’t become a philosopher. With a few exceptions, IMO they are a bunch of pretentious nitwits whose notion of an accomplishment is hiring someone to take out their garbage. Don’t learn to bs. Just learn as much as you can, put it together as best you can, create your own ideas, and put them out in the world. Suspect everything you learn, and every brilliant idea you invent. Most will be wrong, but as you note, each leads you closer to something more interesting. I like your attitude. "

For the record, a PROPER Philosopher does just that.

Whether most modern day Philosophers actually DO that is a matter of debate.

For the record, I think Locke was awesome and I admire Mortimer Adler. Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” (sp?) was insightful.

While I understand and agree with what you mean, how would you feel about replacing “proper” with “competent?”

Many humans have taken on the temporary role of philosopher. (Example: me. I love working with ideas, but keep a day job.) When I’ve shared beers and arguments with astronomers and engineers, you can count on it that we never discussed astronomy or engineering. We all agreed upon how things worked, and if we were having trouble getting our instruments tuned and calibrated, hey— we get paid for dealing with that during working hours. The question oft addressed in personal time was, why?

We were competent in our work. Our research and engineering projects, all of them pioneering, were extremely successful. My bosses and associates carried their competency into evening philosophical forays. But if I’d have accused any of these guys of being “proper,” they’d have smacked me one.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Is there anything that you would trust above science?

I don’t “trust” science at all. Trust implies an emotional connection. That would be absurd.

Anytime science discovers an explanation for certain behavior, new questions always arise. Given your observation of science discoveries, can you honestly tell me that science will ever explain a single thing without any new questions? Now this does not mean that research [in accordance to God’s law] should not be conducted in order to learn new things about the world around us. When science discovers something new, what it has discovered is a tiny piece to the infinite puzzle of God’s creation.

I happen to think it would be a dreadful thing if science did stop posing new questions. That would mean we’d reached the glass ceiling at the limits of human knowledge.

What causes one person to decide to give up their life in order to save another?

I’m not a mind reader, and I’m not the sacrificial type.

 

[Ed_CA]

the last few days, the posts have been rather nasty. A forum should be a place for a respectful exchange of ideas

 

[Moonstruck888]

the last few days, the posts have been rather nasty. A forum should be a place for a respectful exchange of ideas

I don’t see anything that bad… There are no threats, no bad language… Just robust arguments…

 

[wheels10]

I don’t “trust” science at all. Trust implies an emotional connection. That would be absurd.

trust (trst)
n.

1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
2. Custody; care.
3. Something committed into the care of another; charge.

a. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust.
b. One in which confidence is placed.
5. Reliance on something in the future; hope.
6. Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay in the future; credit.
7. Law
a. A legal title to property held by one party for the benefit of another.
b. The confidence reposed in a trustee when giving the trustee legal title to property to administer for another, together with the trustee’s obligation regarding that property and the beneficiary.
c. The property so held.
8. A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry.

Is science the only source of information that you will trust to answer your questions?

I happen to think it would be a dreadful thing if science did stop posing new questions. That would mean we’d reached the glass ceiling at the limits of human knowledge.

I agree science should continue to ask the new questions. Each new question and each new discovery provides further testimony to God’s infinite intelligence.

I’m not a mind reader, and I’m not the sacrificial type.

True Love is sacrificial. True Love places another person’s needs ahead of one’s own needs.

 

[bonzerdad]

Good to hear from you again. You ask:

@ Bonzerdad:

I’ve thought it over and I do think you’re correct in stating that a continuum cannot be divided. However, how do you account for this discrepancy?

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot be created by successive addition
2. The past has been created by successive addition
3. Therefore, the past is finite.

Now that is deductive reasoning, so if the premises are true (which I believe they are), then the conclusion must be true.

So how do you account for this?

I hate to answer a question with another question. But what makes you think that the past can only have been created by successive addition? I ask this only because understanding the nature of time as finite is what your argument stands or falls on.

 

[Ed_CA]

Mathematically, there are different categories of infinity. The integer numbers, 1,2,3,…
are countable as are all the grains of sand, or electrons. This is said to be a countable infinity. Between tne integers are rational numbers such as 1/5,2/5,3/5 ; 5/2.5/3… and in between the rational numbers are the irrational numbers such as pi. So the set of all numbers, integers, rationals, irrationals, and complex is uncountable.
Regarding the first mover postulate, an infinite set of movers is still countable since one must enumerate each one. However, the fact that this universe is so finely tuned to life allows me to take a leap of faith to postulate that God exists; that is, it is reasonable to me that God exists even though I cannot achieve absolute logical certainity. In the same manner, I do not believe in a “countable infinity” of parallel universes since I do not see any circumstantial evidence for this.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Is science the only source of information that you will trust to answer your questions?

No it isn’t. Can science tell me what woman I should marry, or what colour of tie brings out the blue in my eyes? Of course not.

True Love is sacrificial. True Love places another person’s needs ahead of one’s own needs.

I’ll take your word for it.