What is your favorite proof for God?

[Eric0802]

If you’ve not found any evidence against a creator, you haven’t looked very hard. I’d recommend starting with “God: The Failed Hypothesis” by Victor Stenger and go from there.

Proveit312, I’m familiar with Stenger and – well, let’s just say I’m not impressed. So, let me ask you this: Since you’re impressed with Stenger’s work, what, in your opinion, is the strongest evidence Stenger provides against the existence of God?

As far as your questions, science is working on answering these and other questions that, yes, we do no yet know the answers to.

Are there any questions that are, in principle, beyond the scope of scientific methodologies?

But to fill that gap in knowledge with god is lazy

Most arguments philosophers defend for God’s existence could never be described as “God-of-the-gaps” arguments, yet you obviously seem to have some in mind; can you name one that fits that description?

 

[Thing]

The evidence that Jesus actually existed is pretty thorough. You have the four gospels, the various epistles, and he’s mentioned twice by the historian Josephus. I might be leaving something out, I’m sure that if I am then someone else can add more.

V

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14–37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[62] - Tacitus 56 -117 ad.

[edit] Mara bar Sarapion
Mara was a Syrian Stoic.[82] While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a letter to his son that includes the following text:

For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay, Socrates did “not” die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted.

Thallus, of whom very little is known, wrote a history from the Trojan War to, according to Eusebius, 109 BC. No work of Thallus survives. There is one reference to Thallus having written about events beyond 109 BC. Julius Africanus, writing c. 221, while writing about the crucifixion of Jesus, mentioned Thallus. Thus:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun.[83]

Lucian, a second century Romano-Syrian satirist, who wrote in Greek, wrote:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.[84]

 

[ProveIt312]

Proof is a result of one or more of the 5 senses being able to apprehend. God cannot be apprehended by any one of these senses therefore there is no “proof” of God, yet there is very strong circumstantial “evidence” of God’s existence.
If anyone tries to prove God’s existence by means of any of the 5 senses, they are wasting their time. The 5 senses define the world around us. God is NOT definable, therefore, God cannot be proved. God is infinite and undefinable. The only means be which God reveals himself is through faith.
Once God has revealed himself to a person, words such as “evidence” and “proof” become obsolete. But to accommodate those without faith, my favorite evidences for the existence of God are the few mishaps that occur in nature:
All elements and compounds can exist as either gas, liquid, or solid with their relative density increasing from gas to solid. The only exception to this is water, with its greater density at 4 degrees centigrade (prior to its solid state).
Another mishap is the “blind spot” of the human eye.
From the perspective of a pure evolutionist, these so-called mishaps would be eventually self-corrected in time…unless they are not mishaps at all, but rather predetermined characteristics. Predetermined by what?..God? Yes, God!

Yours is among the most intelligent responses in this discussion, and by a wide margin. One of the main reason’s I’ve been posting in here is because religious belief is based on faith, and there is no “proof” that any god exists, yet so many people throw around the word “proof” so casually that it offends people like me who feel the word should have more meaning than “anecdotal evidence that supports my preconceived notions”.

I do have a few points regarding your post though. For god to “reveal” himself to a person is a tenuous justification to make, first and foremost because Muhammed, Krishna, Zeus, Thor, Horus, etc have all “revealed” themselves to people, but this isn’t what actually happens. People may be delusional, may see a “sign” that is in actuality nothing more than a coincidence or simply get a “rush” when praying or contemplating god, much like a cosmologist may be awed by looking a data from Hubble. Even if one see’s god or one of his agents and hears him clearly externally (rather than from within one’s own internal monologue), absent external witnesses and objective confirmation there are more common and plausible explanations for what the person experienced.

Regarding water, it is a curious phenomenon, yet to make the leap to divine design is a bit of a stretch. Regarding the blind spot in the human eye, it’s caused by the ocular nerve and is just as expected via natural selection and evolution; there needed to be a “wire” connecting the eye to the brain, and we’d have less movement of our eyes if it were elsewhere. Likely, there were mutations where this happened, yet these people were at a disadvantage when seeing prey or predators so they were “weeded out” via natural selection. Also, the fact that these nerves cross on their way to our brain and our brain has to do additional processing to give us the proper, right-side up image is another example of un-intelligent design, indicating natural means rather than what a designer would create. Being able to smell things like carbon monoxide would also be handy, or being able to see better at night, see in the infrared or radio frequencies would also make our senses a bit more complete. Yet we didn’t evolve these abilities because they were not necessary to our survival.

I know I tend to come off as combative, yet my ultimate motivation is for people to focus more on their fellow man and making the world a better place for this and future generations. One of my favorite quotes that explains this position is “There is not sufficient love and goodness in the world to permit us to give some of it away to imaginary beings.”

 

[avflf]

Re: St. Joseph of Cupertino

Now here’s a poor fellow who wasn’t very bright
And never mastered the ability to read or write
But when in a trace he would take to the sky
Much to the consternation of those nearby.

He’d go into a trance and then he’d start to fly
Or hover in the air, though he didn’t know why
But the Church viewed this in a very poor light
And kept him in monasteries, well out of sight.

He wasn’t the only one, in Church “history”,
That could by himself fly higher than a tree
Each one of those below was also a flier,
And some flew lower and others flew higher.

Saint Alphonsus Liguori
Saint Archangela Girlani
Saint Catherine of Siena
Saint Christina the Astonishing
Blessed Christina von Stommeln
Saint Edmund Rich[4]
Saint Francis of Paola
Saint Francis Fasani
Saint Francis Xavier
Saint Gemma Galgani
Saint Gerard Majella
Saint Ignatius Loyola
Saint John Bosco
Saint John Joseph of the Cross
Saint Joseph of Cupertino[5]
Saint Ludgardis of Tongeren
Saint Luke Thaumaturgus (Luke the Younger)[6]
Saint Martin de Porres
Saint Michael Garicoits
Blessed Miguel Pro
Saint Paul of the Cross
Saint Peter Claver
Saint Peter of Alcantara
Saint Philip Neri
Saint Teresa of Avila
Saint Thomas Aquinas
Saint Seraphim of Sarov
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Cupertino

 

[ProveIt312]

Proveit312, I’m familiar with Stenger and – well, let’s just say I’m not impressed. So, let me ask you this: Since you’re impressed with Stenger’s work, what, in your opinion, is the strongest evidence Stenger provides against the existence of God?

I mentioned that book because of the science (specifically physics and cosmology) in it, but in the spirit of that book, I’d respond with the fact that absence of evidence is evidence of absence when there should be evidence where it’s not. There’s no indication of external influence, divine intervention or the need of a creator in the universe as we know it. Even in areas where we lack knowledge, the idea of the Abrahamic god raises more questions than it answers. The universe and everything in it exists just as one would expect absent a creator. Any and all evidence presented by believers is inconclusive at best, though usually explained better by natural and simpler means and every time new evidence is discovered that further erodes the case for a god the religious scramble for some new way to explain away or justify very obvious failings of logic, be it our round earth, 4.5 billion year old earth, evolution and natural selection, “unintelligent design” present in nature, etc. Fact is, most Christians (though not all) wouldn’t know science, history or a verifiable fact if it hit them in the face.

Are there any questions that are, in principle, beyond the scope of scientific methodologies?

There are the questions of beauty, of love, of art or music and the effects they have on us, sure. There are things like philosophy as well. But other animals display affection, people’s views of art and music differ, as do philosophical differences. However, we still have a good understanding of many of these mechanisms at their most basic levels; love and affection is a byproduct of our being a social species, as this was beneficial to our survival in our earliest forms (as well as today). Love also get’s confused quite often with reproductive impulses, partly due to religious/societal associations between the two that are, at their cores, independent of one another. Love is actually merely an affinity for other individuals you admire, that you share common goals/interests/desires/etc, who’s traits you feel complement your own, etc. It all resides in the mind, and test have shown that the introduction of chemicals or even magnetic currents can drastically affect people core personality, from ethics, attitude, demeanor, etc. No god, no spirit, no soul, but simply material beings. How we (and all life) got here isn’t yet fully understood, but it will be.

Most arguments philosophers defend for God’s existence could never be described as “God-of-the-gaps” arguments, yet you obviously seem to have some in mind; can you name one that fits that description?

Most PEOPLE’S justification of god is based on gaps; basically, if I don’t understand how the universe or life or whatever came to be, god must’ve done it - just like epilepsy and disease used to be demons, that natural disasters were the work of gods. All in all, philosophy may contemplate the existence or nature of god (be it theistic, deistic or simply a metaphor for the nature of the universe), but ultimately offers zero data as to whether there actually IS a god.

 

[Eric0802]

I mentioned that book because of the science (specifically physics and cosmology) in it,

What scientific conclusions provide evidence that God does not exist?

but in the spirit of that book, I’d respond with the fact that absence of evidence is evidence of absence when there should be evidence where it’s not. There’s no indication of external influence, divine intervention or the need of a creator in the universe as we know it.

I agree that absence of evidence is evidence of absence when we have a reasonable expectation of evidence in a given context. If I’m trying to determine whether there’s a great dane in my tent, the absence of evidence will do just fine. But – and this is the important part – that’s because I know precisely what to expect if there is a great dane in my tent. Now, you used some vague phrases like “external influence,” “divine intervention” and “need of a creator in the universe as we know it” in connection with what we should expect if God exists. Could you be more precise? What specific evidence is absent with respect to the existence of God, and why specifically should we expect it to be there?

Even in areas where we lack knowledge, the idea of the Abrahamic god raises more questions than it answers.

As any scientist will tell you, every good scientific theory raises more questions than it answers. Now I’m not saying that ‘God’ is a scientific theory; rather, I’m saying that the fact that positing God’s existence raises more questions than it answers in no way counts against God’s existence.

The universe and everything in it exists just as one would expect absent a creator.

Could you be more specific? I encounter this claim all the time, but I’ve yet to see any specific claims that cannot be easily countered.

Any and all evidence presented by believers is inconclusive at best, though usually explained better by natural and simpler means and every time new evidence is discovered

Well, most arguments for God’s existence, by far, are philosophical arguments, and philosophical arguments are almost never ‘conclusive.’ What I mean by that is all philosophic arguments can be understood as attempts to get us to pay a price for rejecting a conclusion, and the price is rejecting a strong premise.

Now given that most (indeed, nearly all) arguments for God’s existence are philosophical, it seems to me that the all too common objection you repeat above (the evidence for God’s existence is usually explained better by natural and simpler means) simply confuses philosophic arguments for scientific arguments. That is, almost no philosophical arguments for God’s existence ‘compete’ with scientific arguments to see which one is ‘simpler’ and a ‘better explanation’ of natural phenomenon.

that further erodes the case for a god the religious scramble for some new way to explain away or justify very obvious failings of logic, be it our round earth, 4.5 billion year old earth, evolution and natural selection, “unintelligent design” present in nature, etc. Fact is, most Christians (though not all) wouldn’t know science, history or a verifiable fact if it hit them in the face.

The last sentence is as applicable to ‘most atheists’ as it is to ‘most Christians,’ which is to say it does no work whatsoever.

Your other claims are difficult to follow. For example, you seem to be under the impression that most Christians are young earthers or anti-evolutionists. Given that Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Anglicans (in general) don’t have much of a problem with either evolution (as a scientific theory) or an old earth, and that resistance to evolution and (especially) to a young earth is limited to a relatively small (though admittedly vocal) percentage of the Christian population, the notion that Christianity is opposed to science and that Christians must “scramble” to “explain away or justify obvious failings of logic” misses the mark by quite a bit (and evinces an ignorance of the history of Christianity; e.g. see Augustine, writing in the fourth century, on not reading Genesis literally, which makes the notion of twentieth and twenty first century Christians “scrambling” so reconcile YEC with an old earth sound absurd).

 

[Eric0802]

There are the questions of beauty, of love, of art or music and the effects they have on us, sure. There are things like philosophy as well. But other animals display affection, people’s views of art and music differ, as do philosophical differences. However, we still have a good understanding of many of these mechanisms at their most basic levels; love and affection is a byproduct of our being a social species, as this was beneficial to our survival in our earliest forms (as well as today). Love also get’s confused quite often with reproductive impulses, partly due to religious/societal associations between the two that are, at their cores, independent of one another. Love is actually merely an affinity for other individuals you admire, that you share common goals/interests/desires/etc, who’s traits you feel complement your own, etc. It all resides in the mind, and test have shown that the introduction of chemicals or even magnetic currents can drastically affect people core personality, from ethics, attitude, demeanor, etc. No god, no spirit, no soul, but simply material beings…

This just strikes me as a gross oversimplification of the issues on the one hand, and as an unrealistic assessment of the status of the scientific research in these areas on the other. I heard a recent interview with Noam Chomsky of MIT by a humanist radio show host on science and religion (listen here). As Chomsky correctly pointed out, we don’t know nearly as much about human nature via science as humanists and atheists writing on a popular level would lead you to believe. Indeed, Chomsky says that we’re going to learn far more about human nature through literature than we are from science in the foreseeable future.

Most PEOPLE’S justification of god is based on gaps; basically, if I don’t understand how the universe or life or whatever came to be, god must’ve done it - just like epilepsy and disease used to be demons, that natural disasters were the work of gods. All in all, philosophy may contemplate the existence or nature of god (be it theistic, deistic or simply a metaphor for the nature of the universe), but ultimately offers zero data as to whether there actually IS a god.

With all due respect, you didn’t answer the question. I asked for an example of a philosophical argument for God’s existence that could be characterized as a “god-of-the-gaps” argument. Do you have an example?

 

[greylorn]

This is true, as evidenced from the fact that the argument I presented cuts both ways. Depending on the premise, it either concludes that God must exist or that God can’t. Since either of the premises are equally non-intuitive, and so there is no reason to choose one over the other, the argument leads to the conclusion: God might exist. I agree with this, but I’m not sure how helpful the conclusion actually is.

What one does with the proof is also heavily dependent on prior-assumed theology.

greylorn:

(Post 258 Page 18)
Suppose that one is interested in workable ideas, instead of in who’s right or whose God is biggest. Suppose that we (well, me and someone other than you) are actually interested in figuring out what we are, and what our purpose might be.

Why someone other than me?

A worthy question. Before making that parenthetical comment I’d followed up your post by googling the philosopher/theologian Plantinga whose ideas you had referenced positively. I found only more of the same old, same old irrelevant philosophical drivel.

I figured, if Pantinga is your kind of thinker, you’re in the same rut as every other believer and disbeliever, arguing about the existence or non-existence of an entity you’ve not even bothered to define. So, my “other than you” comment was simply based upon information you’d provided, plus other posts of yours.

The first indication that I might have erred came with your question. I would be delighted to learn that I’ve misjudged you.

I do not have a God. I suppose that, if God existed and I believed He did, I still would not have a God of my own. God would instead have me.

I understand what you mean, and am okay with the point. Nonetheless, it implies belief (uncertainty, in your case) of a God-concept devised by people who thought that the earth was flat. You seem not to have considered that “God,” whatever He, She, or It might be, might be happily unaware of your existence and unconcerned with your life’s outcome,

In speaking with theists (which I am not), I’d recommend using the phrase “the God you posit” instead of “your God”. It may seem a bit less polemical. Of course, if irenic discourse is not your goal, then please ignore my recommendation.

You’ve caused me to have to look up two new words, thank you. It seems to me that the term, “your God” got the idea across to you, and yes, my style is considerably more polemical than yours.

The phrase “irenic discourse” brought to mind a trip in the late 40’s or thereabouts on which my father spent overmuch time tailgating a big truck with the words, “Good Night, Irene,” written in the dirt on the back doors. I wondered what that meant until acquiring a Leadbelly album a few decades later and firing up a 78 rpm turntable to play the song. Even later, I met Irene, and hope she is doing well.

Upon learning what the word meant, I really prefer irenic discourse. This requires someone to converse with who actually uses intelligence, logic, and best available knowledge. Those kind of people are harder to get than a bloody rare hamburger at IHOP (where I write out a personal waiver of liability before ordering).

The problem with irenic discourse is that one who gets a reputation for that style will receive queries and posts from many well intentioned folks sharing their traditional ideas. Until I can figure out why they are posting to a philosophy forum when they should be on a “recite the catechism” section, avoiding them is less frustrating.

Your final point is actually promising. I won’t use the phrase, “the God you posit” except this once, because it is clumsy. I am curious about the properties you’ve assigned to the God in Whom you have chosen to neither believe nor disbelieve.

Just like people confuse evolution of biological life with Darwinism (which is simply a theory intended to explain evolution), they also confuse God with the Creator of the Universe. There is excellent evidence that our universe, particularly biological life, is the consequence of intelligent engineering. But there is no, and sometimes contrary evidence that the almighty God of Christianity/Islam/etc. did the engineering.

 

[Abu]

ProveIt312
But to fill that gap in knowledge with god is lazy; science has progressed mankind’s knowledge exponentially more in the past century than all religions have combined throughout their entire combined existence.

The inanity continues from one who has been totally unable to understand fact from fiction – same idle chatter – he has had no answers and no facts, and is quite unable to face reality.

He regards “science” as a god, still blissfully unaware, even now, that it is “mankind” who initiates scientific endeavour, and that scientific endeavour arose only from the theology and philosophy of the Catholic Church which motivated and enabled the flowering of science. It is a classic example of cause and effect to produce a watershed in science. He has seen the evidence of this fact (posts #212, 246), which he, and all others, have been quite unable to refute, but his mirage clouds his vision.

BTW, according to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not. [Scientists Don’t Hate God After All, Nov 25th 2009. http://fusionfilter.com/?p=5036]

 

[Eric0802]

I’d followed up your post by googling the philosopher/theologian Plantinga whose ideas you had referenced positively. I found only more of the same old, same old irrelevant philosophical drivel.

I figured, if Pantinga is your kind of thinker, you’re in the same rut as every other believer and disbeliever, arguing about the existence or non-existence of an entity you’ve not even bothered to define.

Plantinga famously doesn’t think one needs arguments for God’s existence as a condition of such a belief’s being rational. He argues that we can know God exists in a “properly basic” way, which is to say (and I’m oversimplifying here a lot) we don’t deduce or infer it from other propositions, but deduce and infer other propositions from it (just as we don’t deduce or infer the reality of the past, or the existence of other minds, from other propositions, but believe them to be true in a “properly basic” way). Such properly basic beliefs count as knowledge not because they are justified in the traditional sense (e.g. with evidence, arguments, sense data, etc.), but because they are warranted (‘warrant’ being what we add to true beliefs that makes them count as ‘knowledge’). And, if a personal God exists, then the belief that God exists is warranted. So, to deny that belief in God is warranted in a properly basic way, you have to show that God doesn’t exist (or, as Plantinga says, you have to address the de facto question – whether God exists – before you can address the de jure question – whether belief in God is rational).

However, after all that, it must be noted that Plantinga does think there are good arguments for God’s existence. So, he argues that while we don’t need good arguments to believe rationally that God exists, there are some pretty good arguments for God’s existence. His modal ontological argument, he would say, is one of them. It’s certainly not “the same old irrelevant philosophical drivel”; rather, it uses some of the most sophisticated techniques of modern logic to derive its conclusion, and, famously, the argument is uncontroversially valid. The only question is whether the first premise is true, which is why the argument can be ‘flipped’ to show that God cannot exist. But here’s the interesting point: what the argument does show is that if it’s even possible God exists, he necessarily exists, while if he doesn’t exist, it’s not because he happens not to exist, but because he can’t exist.

So, what do think is more plausibly the case: it’s possible God exists (in which case you must accept that he necessarily exists), or it’s impossible God exists?

 

[DysonSphere]

A worthy question. Before making that parenthetical comment I’d followed up your post by googling the philosopher/theologian Plantinga whose ideas you had referenced positively. I found only more of the same old, same old irrelevant philosophical drivel.

I think Plantinga does very good work as a philosopher. Also, I don’t know what “my kind of thinker” means (he is rational and I try to be, so in that sense he’s my kind of thinker). I don’t agree with him about much. Thirdly, about Plantinga, he’s very good about defining his terms, including “God”. I think he gets more out of his definition than is warranted, but at least he makes the attempt.

So, my “other than you” comment was simply based upon information you’d provided, plus other posts of yours.

So long as you understand that I’m an agnostic, in Huxley’s sense especially, then we are on the same page.

The first indication that I might have erred came with your question. I would be delighted to learn that I’ve misjudged you.

We shall see if I can delight you. I hope so.

…it implies belief (uncertainty, in your case) of a God-concept devised by people who thought that the earth was flat. You seem not to have considered that “God,” whatever He, She, or It might be, might be happily unaware of your existence and unconcerned with your life’s outcome…

I have considered this, not very critically (I admit). It seems as though there is as much consensus for and evidence for one (the ‘flat earth’ god) as for the other (the ‘philosopher’s’ god).

The phrase “irenic discourse” brought to mind a trip in the late 40’s or thereabouts on which my father spent overmuch time tailgating a big truck with the words, “Good Night, Irene,” written in the dirt on the back doors. I wondered what that meant until acquiring a Leadbelly album a few decades later and firing up a 78 rpm turntable to play the song.

I like this.

Upon learning what the word meant, I really prefer irenic discourse. This requires someone to converse with who actually uses intelligence, logic, and best available knowledge. Those kind of people are harder to get than a bloody rare hamburger at IHOP (where I write out a personal waiver of liability before ordering).

No one always does this (at least no one I’ve met) all the time, but many people do this a lot of the time, and that’s where I want to be here: intelligence, logic, best available knowledge (well said).

The problem with irenic discourse is that one who gets a reputation for that style will receive queries and posts from many well intentioned folks sharing their traditional ideas. Until I can figure out why they are posting to a philosophy forum when they should be on a “recite the catechism” section, avoiding them is less frustrating.

This is both a problem and an opportunity. I find it valuable to learn about why people think and believe the way that they do. It’s not my main concern, but it’s something I find helpful, both for myself and for others.

Your final point is actually promising. I won’t use the phrase, “the God you posit” except this once, because it is clumsy. I am curious about the properties you’ve assigned to the God in Whom you have chosen to neither believe nor disbelieve.

The properties cannot be properly enumerated, because my agnosticism applies to every definition of God that I’ve encountered save for two classes. (1) Absurd definitions for God, about which I am confidently an atheist, and (2) panentheistic and pantheistic definitions of God, as well as others, that equate or closely connect God with nature, and about which I prefer to use a different term (but I respect those who, in a very real religious zeal, like Einstein, call this “God”).

Just like people confuse evolution of biological life with Darwinism (which is simply a theory intended to explain evolution), they also confuse God with the Creator of the Universe. There is excellent evidence that our universe, particularly biological life, is the consequence of intelligent engineering. But there is no, and sometimes contrary evidence that the almighty God of Christianity/Islam/etc. did the engineering.

About this I am still not confident. The arguments for intelligent design appear to be outside the bounds of science (given a strict constructivist understanding), though they deal with scientific concepts that are far from settled, and observations and objects that are not well understood. This is why I’m agnostic about there being such a God (the combination of my ignorance outside of science and the argument being outside of science).

The most compelling argument for God as universe-mind was Dyson’s. He equated free will with unpredictability in principle, and so stated that isotopes have minds (we cannot predict when any individual isotope will decay), humans have minds (we cannot predict what any individual human will do next), and the universe has a mind (there are many things about the universe as a whole that we cannot predict). The universe-mind he calls God. I am uncertain about this position, both because I think he’s equivocating, and because I don’t know if it’s meaningful to talk about the universe as a whole, at least in the bounds of science.

---

“I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter…” - Thomas Huxley

 

[greylorn]

It’s amazing how people so readily accept anecdotal evidence hundreds of years old, yet reject scientific evidence for things like evolution or climate change that is happening and can be demonstrated RIGHT NOW. Convenient how none of these things happen today, or to more people at a time. It’s not that I’d reject any evidence provided, yet stories like this are no more reliable than stories of sea monsters told by Vikings or eyewitness accounts of UFO’s. Even when a large group of people see’s something unexplained, it doesn’t prove their conclusion (based on preexisting beliefs) is necessarily the correct one.

Human thinking (I use the word loosely) seems to be dependent upon agreement. No one wants to be the only man in the village who has seen a UFO or LGM, or who has healed someone with her touch. Worse than death is to believe something which is entirely outside the bounds of accepted belief.

Therefore, data which cannot be explained by any currently agreed-upon-by-nitwits-theory are largely dismissed.

Ball lightening is an excellent case in point. It had been reported over centuries by many witnesses, just regular folk with no agenda, and with no particular credentials as trained, objective observers. Lacking any theory to explain it, ball lightening observations were dismissed by all scientists.

This changed in the late 20th century when physicists went to work on the problem of hydrogen fusion (a contained H-bomb). They developed some equations which described plasmas, self-contained blobs of energetic particles. Ah ha! Someone figured out that these equations would apply to ball lightening observations. Thus it became okay to believe in ball lightening. The subsequent proliferation of video cameras added enough empirical evidence to cement the deal.

Now it is okay for a scientist to believe in the existence of ball lightening— nevermind that we still have no clue as to what it is, or what causes it— exactly as before the plasma descriptions and cool videos.

Credible scientists do not believe in UFOs despite considerable excellent evidence (no, not on the History/Discovery Channels) because they cannot get past the velocity of light barrier, which only means that they’ve accepted the applicability of the Lorentz transformation to the real universe.

Check some history books. We come from a legacy of very well educated and highly intelligent nitwits whose thought processes stop dead at theoretical barriers, until someone with a functional mind (but fewer diplomas) punches a hole through them.

Despite the ongoing claims of scientists that for them, evidence is paramount, it is not. What is important for run-of-the-mill scientists who control the scientific belief systems, is their current favorite theory. Data which cannot fit their theories are declared false data, no matter how many times the information may be repeated, or in how many different forms.

Theory always trumps data.

Reliable treadmill scientists do not believe in telepathy, telekinesis, precognition, or anything smacking of the vaguely spiritual, because their belief system does not support it. Yet, the evidence is out there. Curiously, most religionists are in the science camp on such supposedly controversial issues.

Your last sentence exposes the problem: “Even when a large group of people see’s something unexplained, it doesn’t prove their conclusion (based on preexisting beliefs) is necessarily the correct one.”

You insist upon tying observations to beliefs (theories). Yet, most casual observers have no particular agenda, and do not relate their observations to a belief system. The country people who watched a ball of lightening roll along their street and up into a rainwater barrel, evaporating the water, did not declare the event to be an act of God. The pilots who have seen UFO’s simply reported what they saw.

It is people like you who muck things up, muddling observations with theory, thereby forestalling, or impeding the invention of a more comprehensive theory.

I propose that we accept all useful observations, and if these happen to contradict any theory, then scrap the theory because it is certainly incorrect. The history of science has proven this.

 

[greylorn]

What scientific conclusions provide evidence that God does not exist?

The First Law of Thermodynamics implicitly declares that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

The God defined by Christianity is believed to have created all things. He cannot have created energy, (Please spare readers with a three-digit I.Q. the yada yada about how God can create anything, or create energy and then declare that it cannot be created, You asked for a scientific law, and there it is. Not just a mickey-mouse law, but one which is fundamental to classical physics and recognized by the U.S. Patent Office, which is why you cannot patent your perpetual motion machine unless it produces no heat.

If that’s not enough, consider the Third Law of Thermodynamics, which declares that there is a lower limit to temperature, 0 degrees Kelvin. God cannot make an ice cube any colder than 0 K. That means that God is physically limited, contrary to the commonly held definition of God.

None of this implies that there is no creator of the universe— only that humans have incorrectly defined the creator.

 

[greylorn]

Plantinga famously doesn’t think one needs arguments for God’s existence as a condition of such a belief’s being rational. He argues that we can know God exists in a “properly basic” way, which is to say (and I’m oversimplifying here a lot) we don’t deduce or infer it from other propositions, but deduce and infer other propositions from it (just as we don’t deduce or infer the reality of the past, or the existence of other minds, from other propositions, but believe them to be true in a “properly basic” way). Such properly basic beliefs count as knowledge not because they are justified in the traditional sense (e.g. with evidence, arguments, sense data, etc.), but because they are warranted (‘warrant’ being what we add to true beliefs that makes them count as ‘knowledge’). And, if a personal God exists, then the belief that God exists is warranted. So, to deny that belief in God is warranted in a properly basic way, you have to show that God doesn’t exist (or, as Plantinga says, you have to address the de facto question – whether God exists – before you can address the de jure question – whether belief in God is rational).

However, after all that, it must be noted that Plantinga does think there are good arguments for God’s existence. So, he argues that while we don’t need good arguments to believe rationally that God exists, there are some pretty good arguments for God’s existence. His modal ontological argument, he would say, is one of them. It’s certainly not “the same old irrelevant philosophical drivel”; rather, it uses some of the most sophisticated techniques of modern logic to derive its conclusion, and, famously, the argument is uncontroversially valid. The only question is whether the first premise is true, which is why the argument can be ‘flipped’ to show that God cannot exist. But here’s the interesting point: what the argument does show is that if it’s even possible God exists, he necessarily exists, while if he doesn’t exist, it’s not because he happens not to exist, but because he can’t exist.

So, what do think is more plausibly the case: it’s possible God exists (in which case you must accept that he necessarily exists), or it’s impossible God exists?

Throughout your arguments, and Plantinga’s, and most everyone else’s, there is no specific definition of the properties of the entity you are all positing.

What exactly is the “god” you and he are discussing. What are his properties?

Until you define these, you are arguing about the existence of a word.

When you define these, you can argue about the possibility that an entity which such properties can actually exist.

I find excellent evidence for the existence of creators, intelligent entities capable of manipulating the energy of the universe into physical forms, and no evidence that the universe or any component thereof was the product of an accident. None of this evidence supports the notion of an almighty God.

I consider Big Bang theory absurd, for lack of any definition of the thing that went bang and whatever rendered it unstable. The traditional God concept, likewise.

Philosopher’s logic is best dismissed as irrelevant, unless the philosopher has at least a minor in physics or has not taken a single university philosophy course. I have no respect for the meanderings which modern philosophers pass off as “thought.” There is no more useless, no more mindless, a group of human sheep masquerading as intelligent individuals than philosophers on the planet, except for the U.S. Congress. Contingent and necessary notions are irrelevant to someone actually curious about how things work, and why.

 

[Eric0802]

The First Law of Thermodynamics implicitly declares that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
The God defined by Christianity is believed to have created all things. He cannot have created energy, (Please spare readers with a three-digit I.Q. the yada yada about how God can create anything, or create energy and then declare that it cannot be created, You asked for a scientific law, and there it is.

Physical laws are statistical regularities that are mathematically formulated to describe natural phenomena. The “God defined by Christianity” is the creator and subsistent cause of the universe described by those physical laws. That is, God is not another being in the natural world (indeed, he’s not a being in addition to the natural world either), so he cannot, as a matter of logic, be subject to them. (It doesn’t even take a three digit IQ to work out that logically sound syllogism. If you object to a categorical formulation with a premise positing the existence of such a God in fact, try a modus ponens instead, and the result is the same.) So, since physical laws describe and delimit natural phenomena only, and since the Christian God, if He exists, is not a part of the natural world, He is not delimited by physical laws.

If that’s not enough, consider the Third Law of Thermodynamics, which declares that there is a lower limit to temperature, 0 degrees Kelvin. God cannot make an ice cube any colder than 0 K. That means that God is physically limited, contrary to the commonly held definition of God…

Here we get to the heart of the difficulty: You’re conflating logically distinct categories of “possibility” and misapplying them to God due to the faulty analysis I pointed out in my response to your first quote above.

Something is technologically possible (TP) if our current technology can achieve it. So, it is currently technologically possible to travel to the moon, though it was not TP one hundred years ago. Similarly, there are sundry things that are currently not TP, but will be in the future.

Something is physically possible (PhP) if it doesn’t violate the laws of physics that obtain in our universe. So, it is PhP for ordinary objects to travel at half the speed of light, though it is currently not TP.

Something is logically possible (LP) if it doesn’t involve a contradiction. So, it is LP for an ordinary object to travel at a trillion times the speed of light, though it’s neither TP nor PhP.

Now, God is not limited by TP; he’s also not limited by PhP. God is only ‘limited’ by LP, but that’s not a real limitation, since logically contradictory propositions are meaningless.

So God is not limited by the Third Law of Thermodynamics, since this would be a PhP limitation.

None of this implies that there is no creator of the universe— only that humans have incorrectly defined the creator.

Well, some have certainly incorrectly defined the Christian conception of that creator…

 

[Eric0802]

Throughout your arguments, and Plantinga’s, and most everyone else’s, there is no specific definition of the properties of the entity you are all positing.

What exactly is the “god” you and he are discussing. What are his properties?

Until you define these, you are arguing about the existence of a word.

When you define these, you can argue about the possibility that an entity which such properties can actually exist.

Let me answer this obliquely first, then directly. I think it will make my point clearer.

What can I say more about: This cat, or cats? Cats, or felidae? Felidae, or mammals? Mammals, or animals? Animals, or living things? Living things, or things?

Do you notice that as we move from the narrower concept to the broader concept we can say less and less with precision? I can provide “this specific cat’s” genome, but can’t say much specific at all about “living thing.”

Okay, now that that point is clear, let’s look at how Christians have traditionally understood God.

God is defined by classical theists as ipsum esse subsistens: the subsistent act of being itself. That is, God is the ground of all being, the condition of to be itself. In other words, God is much broader, conceptually, than the concept “thing”; so, if we can say next to nothing specific about “thing,” why expect so precise a definition of God? It seems to me that once you understand the classical theist’s conception of the Christian God, the fact that we have to rely on apophatic theology and analogical predication to talk about God (from the standpoint of reason alone) is neither surprising nor in any sense defective.

 

[greylorn]

I think Plantinga does very good work as a philosopher. Also, I don’t know what “my kind of thinker” means (he is rational and I try to be, so in that sense he’s my kind of thinker). I don’t agree with him about much. Thirdly, about Plantinga, he’s very good about defining his terms, including “God”. I think he gets more out of his definition than is warranted, but at least he makes the attempt.

(This is reply 1 of 2.)

Your phrase, “as a philosopher,” speaks to Plantinga’s irrelevance.

Your comment that you don’t agree with him about much suggests that you have more potential.

Kindly direct me to Plantinga’s definition of “God,” for I did not find it and am not interested enough in his ideas to track it down. If that takes more than two minutes of your time, please don’t spend it.

I
So long as you understand that I’m an agnostic, in Huxley’s sense especially, then we are on the same page.

Same page— but in which book?

I
We shall see if I can delight you. I hope so.

Me too. And be careful what you hope for.

I
I have considered this, not very critically (I admit). It seems as though there is as much consensus for and evidence for one (the ‘flat earth’ god) as for the other (the ‘philosopher’s’ god).

Perhaps you are willing to look beyond consensus?

I
I like this.

Methinks you’d appreciate the song as well. But do not listen to the Leadbelly original unless you are willing that it be always in your heart, sometimes in your mind.

I
No one always does this (at least no one I’ve met) all the time, but many people do this a lot of the time, and that’s where I want to be here: intelligence, logic, best available knowledge (well said).

If you ever meet someone who does this all the time, run like hell.

I
This is both a problem and an opportunity. I find it valuable to learn about why people think and believe the way that they do. It’s not my main concern, but it’s something I find helpful, both for myself and for others.

You are wise in this approach. Had I learned it, I might be rich and famous. If you ever figure it out, kindly pass along your insights.

 

[greylorn]

Reply 2 of 2.

DysonSphere:

I
The properties cannot be properly enumerated, because my agnosticism applies to every definition of God that I’ve encountered save for two classes. (1) Absurd definitions for God, about which I am confidently an atheist, and (2) panentheistic and pantheistic definitions of God, as well as others, that equate or closely connect God with nature, and about which I prefer to use a different term (but I respect those who, in a very real religious zeal, like Einstein, call this “God”).

That’s a fairly wide range of God-definitions. Generally speaking, you’ve covered the available bases. I propose that there is another base in a different game, a God Who is not omnipotent, not omniscient, logically and physically limited, Who did not always exist.

I
About this I am still not confident. The arguments for intelligent design appear to be outside the bounds of science (given a strict constructivist understanding), though they deal with scientific concepts that are far from settled, and observations and objects that are not well understood. This is why I’m agnostic about there being such a God (the combination of my ignorance outside of science and the argument being outside of science).

You are reading way too many philosophy books. Philosophers don’t really know much. I’ve yet to encounter one who has studied physics at the high school level, much less beyond it, or who is even capable of doing so. Yet they speak freely about aspects of the physical universe. Their only purpose is to collect wages better spent on garbage collection and janitorial costs from universities, to teach students how to be philosophers, so as to collect wages… etc. They contribute nothing, and few can change the oil in their cars.

Read someone with a mind comparable to your own. I suggest Michael Behe’s two books, Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution in that order. Inexpensive via Amazon. You may be daunted by an unexpected foray into microbiology (I sure was!) but he makes it easy. (For you, certainly.) Should you buy these books, save the receipt and send them to me (I’ll PM my address) if you do not appreciate them. Shortly afterward, my goons will show up at your door after midnight with your reimbursement.

Seriously, I will purchase those books from you at your request, no questions, shipping included. All I ask is that you skip whatever you might read about Behe and read his books at my personal request. He has a fine mind, and you will find him a kindred spirit.

I
The most compelling argument for God as universe-mind was Dyson’s. He equated free will with unpredictability in principle, and so stated that isotopes have minds (we cannot predict when any individual isotope will decay), humans have minds (we cannot predict what any individual human will do next), and the universe has a mind (there are many things about the universe as a whole that we cannot predict). The universe-mind he calls God. I am uncertain about this position, both because I think he’s equivocating, and because I don’t know if it’s meaningful to talk about the universe as a whole, at least in the bounds of science.

Perhaps I will have the opportunity to offer a more compelling argument, in the context of a larger theory in which carbon-14 is as mindless as carbon-12, not all humans have minds, and the universe is filled with them. I almost never equivocate.

Religion has bounds. Science does not, although there are nitwits within who desire them. When science acquires bounds, it will become a religion.

 

[greylorn]

Well, some have certainly incorrectly defined the Christian conception of that creator…

A forthright person would have had the integrity to use the pronoun “you” rather than the smarmy, oblique adjective “some,” like you did.

You’ve not said anything worth my reply. I apologize for thinking that your earlier comments warranted a response.

I will conclude my communications with you by addressing your last line, which shows how your mind works more simply (therefore more clearly) than your previous obfuscations.

I have not defined the Christian concept of any creator. That is the job of Christians. Any concepts respecting the Creator of the universe that I propose are my own.

 

[Abu]

DysonSphere
The arguments for intelligent design appear to be outside the bounds of science (given a strict constructivist understanding), though they deal with scientific concepts that are far from settled, and observations and objects that are not well understood.

Back to reality
Living Tradition of The Roman Theological Forum is an excellent site from which to engage with reality.
rtforum.org/lt/lt117.html
“….it is a basic assumption of many, probably most, modern empirical scientists that physical nature is a closed system ultimately explainable in terms only of itself, but this assumption is not essential to the findings and structure of modern science. Secondly, it is reasonable for an empirical science which as such is based strictly upon the observation and statistical recording of natural recurrences, not to be able to recognize within its own field of competence divine interventions or even interventions caused by free human decisions. But that does not entitle empirical scientists to exclude divine or human interventions that are observable in other fields of science, such as the fields of history, philosophy, and theology. Nor is an empirical scientist justified in limiting certified knowledge to the data of the empirical sciences and in thus excluding his need to acknowledge the results of other sciences. Hence, what comes particularly into focus at this point is the difference between simply not finding divine interventions within the special fields of empirical science and declaring, as an empirical scientist, that no such divine interventions have taken place or are even possible. The fact is that every empirical scientist is living in a larger world of reality and reasonably needs to fit his specialized knowledge into the knowledge of the larger world. [My underlining].