What would you do if it were proven...?

[The_Absurdist]

This read suggests to me that you do not understand logic, except superficially. That’s okay-- and common. Most people operate from the notion that by using a word authoritatively, others will imagine that they actually understand its full meaning. Perhaps you are one of those who actually thought that Star Trek’s “Spock” character spoke and acted logically, simply because the other characters frequently reiterated this obvious falsehood in their scripted dialogue.

Real logic, properly applied, can do something which no amount of the “reasoning” that people oft mistake for logic, can do. Real logic can correct a faulty belief, and lead to unreasonable (but perfectly logical) discoveries,

My sense is that you are skilled at reasoning, so as to present yourself as logical. Ultimately, whatever you choose to believe will be based upon your programming/emotions/whatever, leaving very slippery grounds for discussion. Not interested in another time-killer.

I think you misunderstood me. Go back and re-read my post. You and I are saying the same thing: logic can correct the faulty belief and lead to unreasonable (but nevertheless logical) discoveries–on that point, we agree. I only made the point that real, logical findings are what people ought to find satisfying (whether they seem reasonable or not). I assume that, since you are such a strong advocate for logic, you feel the same way.

I don’t know what you’re getting at with all that nonsense about spock.

 

[honestquestions]

Oh.

At last!

Someone who can set all the religious people of all generations straight.

First up though, please explain how an ‘assumption’ is a logical fallacy.

I may have misstated my point. Here is what I meant:

Correct unbiased question: How did this happen? (Includes all possible answers)
Incorrect biased question: Who made this happen? (Immediately only accepts answers based on your current beliefs)

 

[honestquestions]

Has it also then been proven that NO GOD exists, or could Allah still exist? Could the Hindu gods exist? Are you discussing only the Christian God?

It has not been proven that no god exists, just as it has not been proven that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist.

There really is no way to prove to me that God does not exist.

At this time, correct, it is very reasonable to say it is highly likely that there is no way to prove that god does not exist, plus a multitude of other things that we could hypothetically create. This is called being agnostic - realizing it’s highly likely that there is no proof that can ultimately prove nor disprove something. But because something does not have sufficient evidence currently, it therefore seems acceptable to simply not believe in the claim - not that you believe that the claim doesn’t exist. That’s two different things.

What is the explanation for miracles, if there is no God?

Give some examples of ‘miracles’ and we can discuss those specifically. Something outside our abilities and larger than time and space has made those miracles…there can be no scientific explanation for miracles.

Even scientists have said that some things simply cannot be explained away.

Correct, not every possible question in the world currently has an answer at this time, which simply means, we don’t have an answer at this time. As time progresses, we answer more and more tough questions as history has shown. But if we currently do not understand something, does that mean we should press the ‘easy’ button and say therefore god did it?

 

[Pieman333272]

So would I, especially if someone else wrote it.

I’ve actually started several threads intended to discuss specific ideas, but they attracted a large number of argumentative dogmatists who pretty much killed the threads by posting lots of drivel. No fun.

My theories are complex enough to require a book, and I’m closing in on my final chapter. They are not beliefs— just the best ideas about creation and the Creator(s) that I could invent that would be logically, scientifically, and empirically consistent. There could be some interest in threads which might discuss, explain, and correct the book’s ideas. That would only be relevant to those who are curious enough to read the book.

If interest materializes, I’ll ask our moderators for a venue that they might deem appropriate. You are welcome to participate, should that happen. I doubt that it will— this is the Catholic Answers Forum, after all.

Besides, my book beats Darwin up with as many bats and shredders as I could find, and the topic is forbidden here.

Try the Back Fence for your counter-Darwin work. I’m interested to hear your arguments, both from your own mind and that of Behe’s.

 

[Pieman333272]

Pieman,

I wish that I could explain my feelings upon getting a question like this-- straight up and honest. I hope that a simple thank you works.

And then, of course, there is the matter of an answer. We may have to work on this through a few more posts, and I’m happy to do so if you are willing to stick with it.

The Three Laws are profoundly philosophical. They could not exist in physics unless they were really good laws, because you are not the only Christian to see their implications for classical theology.

There are no more thoroughly challenged and tested principles of physics than these three. They are hard won ideas, and were discovered by off-the-shelf investigators rather than by formally educated physicists. You are one of many thinkers to ask your questions, and I hope that you will not be the last, because in my opinion, the more profound and powerful an idea, the more it must be tested and challenged…

Therein lies the difference between honest science (Darwinism excluded) and religion-- science tests its own dogma.

The counter to your argument is this: There are many laws of physics, and they have a kind of hierarchy, just like a church or a corporation. Thermodynamic Laws are at the top. Energy-form laws such as the kinetic energy equation, Einstein’s mass-energy relationship, etc. are on the next tier. For physicists and engineers these simple formulas expand into the third tier of laws— detailed descriptions about how to make things actually work— like how to calculate the optimal size of the valves in your car or the diameter of a rocket motor’s exhaust.

All the secondary and tertiary laws of physics involving the dynamic exchanges of energy from one form to another involve the time parameter. Every one. (Well, at least I don’t know of any exceptions. Some might exist, but I find it hard to imagine a formula for a time-dependent phenomenon which excludes time as a formal parameter.)

However, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the topmost tier of physical principles, do not include time.

Your arguments are time-dependent, and therefore do not apply.

Nonetheless, there is a solution which includes these ideas in a consistently logical package:

• We live in a created universe.
• The laws of thermodynamics apply to all aspects of creation, including the creator.

In the process of dealing with your question you must consider a principle which might contradict your current understanding, which is, time as we perceive it, is a completely artificial construct. It did not exist before God became conscious. He created it, exactly like computer designers create time (basic clock speed) within their machines.

Therefore He is not bound by time or the physical geometries He devised which are time dependent, at least not in the sense we imagine.

I hope that this helps. Thank you for your question. It invoked thought, for whatever that might be worth. I am willing to clarify.

Good post. I had to read it over a few times, but I think I got the idea. My only question to understand is your statement:

However, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the topmost tier of physical principles, do not include time.

Do you mean they aren’t affected by time? Or don’t affect time? Or work regardless of whether or not, for a crude term, time is “on” or “off”? Or something else. I do have a potential objection/question but I want to make sure I get your argument first.

 

[Betterave]

The analogy – and yes, Mr. Reading Comprehension, it was an analogy to our human life – also holds: when the body is broken down beyond hope of repair, we can either choose to end our life or – if we have a sentimental attachment to our life – to preserve it for as long as possible.

LOL! “The analogy holds” does not mean that the point of your statement was to offer an analogy. And it wasn’t: you were just mentioning two examples of things that we contingently value. That doesn’t constitute an analogy, does it? If the context of your comments in this thread were to show that human life is like a car, then it would make sense to call your comments an analogy - but that’s not the context, is it? Or is that really the point you’re trying to make - it’s fine to ‘junk’ a human life if you don’t value it?

In any case, an *analogy *is different from an allegory. Did you know that, Mr. Reading Comprehension?

 

[Betterave]

Oh I see; I misunderstood you the first time . Are you saying that because God issued laws clearly contrary to morality (i.e. child-stoning, etc) then the ultimate morality based on a biblical God can’t exist? If so this is a pretty darn good point. I’m sure some apologists have talked about it somwhere, but I couldn’t tell you why off the top of my head; could any Catholics help me out here?

That was supposed to be evidence that there is no ultimate standard? I never would have guessed. That would only be evidence that if there is an ultimate standard, it is highly implausible to think that it could be established on the basis of randomly invoked citations of proof-texts from religious scriptures - which is a pretty banal point.

 

[Betterave]

I don’t like organized religion because I don’t buy into ridged thinking …

That strikes me as rigid thinking. Have you considered that possibility?

I can’t wrap my head around someone handing me a whole world of beliefs and having to accept them all because I can find flaws in all - and I can also find some good points…

That bold assertion of course invites the question: what flaws? And what do you mean when you say “I can find flaws…”? It sounds like you might just mean: “I can find stuff that, based on my personal experience/beliefs, I don’t like.”

 

[Betterave]

It has not been proven that no god exists, just as it has not been proven that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist.

Let me ask you a loaded question: Isn’t it perfectly obvious that there is no parity between these cases? So why suggest that there is?

 

[CatSci]

It has not been proven that no god exists, just as it has not been proven that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist.

Sure it has:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the parody religion the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism. Created in 2005 by Oregon State physics graduate Bobby Henderson, it was originally intended as a satirical protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public schools.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Somebody just made it up to prove a point. There isn’t really a Flying Spaghetti Monster. What’s so hard about realizing that there really isn’t a Flying Spaghetti Monster? I think people are just protecting another belief (that you can’t disprove god), so they think they must take the absurd position of having to be agnostic to something ridiculous and obviously non-existent in an avoidance of Cognitive Dissonance.

But its okay. You can accept the fact that there’s no Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

[Betterave]

Sure it has:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Somebody just made it up to prove a point. There isn’t really a Flying Spaghetti Monster. What’s so hard about realizing that there really isn’t a Flying Spaghetti Monster? I think people are just protecting another belief (that you can’t disprove god), so they think they must take the absurd position of having to be agnostic to something ridiculous and obviously non-existent in an avoidance of Cognitive Dissonance.

But its okay. You can accept the fact that there’s no Flying Spaghetti Monster

Exactly.

And to expand on that: given that otherwise intelligent people manage to believe that there is some merit to the FSM-argument, we are given some pretty clear evidence that such people are motivated by a clearly irrational will-to-not-believe - in other words, such people, who claim to be devotees of ‘reason,’ are demonstrably lacking in self-knowledge.

 

[CatSci]

given that otherwise intelligent people manage to believe that there is some merit to the FSM-argument, we are given some pretty clear evidence that such people are motivated by a clearly irrational will-to-not-believe

Huh?

I think there’s some merit to the FSM-argument* and I’m not motivated by a will-to-not-believe.

I’m not sure what your saying.

• Added by Edit: I think I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “the FSM-argument”. If you’re referring to the one where people say you can’t disprove it, then it makes sense. If your referring to the argument that Pastafarians have made, then it doesn’t make sense.

 

[samiam1611]

yikes. we’re polar opposites Betterave. It’s like every statement that you came up with a rebuttal with were ones I found especially “true”! (to me) It’s fascinating to me to read such differing views.
Cathoichelp: I don’t like organized religion because I don’t buy into ridged thinking …

Betterave: That strikes me as rigid thinking. Have you considered that possibility?

–Cathoichelp, I tooootallly agree! Betterave, IMO, that is not rigid thinking.

Cathoichelp: I can’t wrap my head around someone handing me a whole world of beliefs and having to accept them all because I can find flaws in all - and I can also find some good points…

Betterave: That bold assertion of course invites the question: what flaws? And what do you mean when you say “I can find flaws…”? It sounds like you might just mean: “I can find stuff that, based on my personal experience/beliefs, I don’t like.”

—I don’t think it’s that bold lol! and I feel like the answer to the question of what flaws could go on and on! And it did not invite me to ask that question in the first place, because it seems so obvious to me (in the general sense that I find flaws in all religions. By flaws I just mean things I disagree with so maybe flaw is not the right word for me but anyway.) And ok, here I do agree with you, it does sound like Cathoichelp meant that. What’s wrong with that?! I feel like many religions, Catholicism especially, claim that everything they say is the ultimate truth and that sort of thing (God said it, how can it be wrong), and I think that those who feel obliged to follow all the rules/believe what they’re told to believe are the ones who are “motivated by a clearly irrational will-to…believe - in other words, such people…are demonstrably lacking in self-knowledge.” (hehehe like how I did that?)
And I love the whole FSM thing! Hilarious! I never heard of it before, although I do vaguely remember the Kansas thing.

 

[Betterave]

Huh?

I think there’s some merit to the FSM-argument* and I’m not motivated by a will-to-not-believe.

I’m not sure what your saying.

• Added by Edit: I think I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “the FSM-argument”. If you’re referring to the one where people say you can’t disprove it, then it makes sense. If your referring to the argument that Pastafarians have made, then it doesn’t make sense.

The FSM-argument claims that since both the statement “you can’t prove the FSM doesn’t exist” and the statement “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist” are true claims, that there is an epistemic parity between the claims “the FSM exists” and “God exists” - right? That’s what I’m referring to.

 

[cathoichelp]

That strikes me as rigid thinking. Have you considered that possibility?

That bold assertion of course invites the question: what flaws? And what do you mean when you say “I can find flaws…”? It sounds like you might just mean: “I can find stuff that, based on my personal experience/beliefs, I don’t like.”

I define rigid thinking as a belief that one faith is entirely correct and the “one true church” or religion -
Especially as the teachings of churches change to some extend over time … so clearly even they admit their flaws in interpretation-

And I have found teachings or doctrine in all religions (that I have studied) that I think is false- therefore flawed-
This is just my opinion though-
I believe different paths are correct for different people… what is correct for me may not be your path- I understand that

 

[Betterave]

yikes. we’re polar opposites Betterave. It’s like every statement that you came up with a rebuttal with were ones I found especially “true”! (to me) It’s fascinating to me to read such differing views.
Cathoichelp: I don’t like organized religion because I don’t buy into ridged thinking …

Betterave: That strikes me as rigid thinking. Have you considered that possibility?

–Cathoichelp, I tooootallly agree! Betterave, IMO, that is not rigid thinking.

LOL! Okay, so same question for you: That strikes me as rigid thinking. Have you considered that possibility? (Note that a refusal to consider that possibility would, rather ironically, seem to constitute *an instance *of rigid thinking.)

Cathoichelp: I can’t wrap my head around someone handing me a whole world of beliefs and having to accept them all because I can find flaws in all - and I can also find some good points…

Betterave: That bold assertion of course invites the question: what flaws? And what do you mean when you say “I can find flaws…”? It sounds like you might just mean: “I can find stuff that, based on my personal experience/beliefs, I don’t like.”

—I don’t think it’s that bold lol! and I feel like the answer to the question of what flaws could go on and on! And it did not invite me to ask that question in the first place, because it seems so obvious to me (in the general sense that I find flaws in all religions. By flaws I just mean things I disagree with so maybe flaw is not the right word for me but anyway.) And ok, here I do agree with you, it does sound like Cathoichelp meant that. What’s wrong with that?! I feel like many religions, Catholicism especially, claim that everything they say is the ultimate truth and that sort of thing (God said it, how can it be wrong), and I think that those who feel obliged to follow all the rules/believe what they’re told to believe are the ones who are “motivated by a clearly irrational will-to…believe - in other words, such people…are demonstrably lacking in self-knowledge.” (hehehe like how I did that?)
And I love the whole FSM thing! Hilarious! I never heard of it before, although I do vaguely remember the Kansas thing.

So we’re polar opposites, but it turns out you agree with me? All of your opinions about what is ‘flawed’ or not - whether or not that’s even the right word - is based on some vague, unspecified ‘feeling’? Yet you want to claim that you are rational? You want to reply to my reasoned argument with an unreasoned “I know you are but what am I”? All this is surely very ironic, no?

 

[Betterave]

I define rigid thinking as a belief that one faith is entirely correct and the “one true church” or religion -

A belief as such cannot constitute “rigid thinking,” so your definition is flawed - the term “rigid thinking” characterizes a mode of holding or evaluating beliefs, not particular beliefs as such; and it has *negative *connotations which must be justified in particular applications of the term.

Especially as the teachings of churches change to some extend over time … so clearly even they admit their flaws in interpretation-

So maybe your belief in the rigidity of religious thinking is mistaken? You can’t have it both ways, can you?

And I have found teachings or doctrine in all religions (that I have studied) that I think is false- therefore flawed-
This is just my opinion though-
I believe different paths are correct for different people… what is correct for me may not be your path- I understand that

But again, what does this “I think X is false” amount to? Again, it sounds like you might just mean: “I can find stuff that, based on my personal experience/beliefs, I don’t like.”

 

[CatSci]

The FSM-argument claims that since both the statement “you can’t prove the FSM doesn’t exist” and the statement “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist” are true claims, that there is an epistemic parity between the claims “the FSM exists” and “God exists” - right? That’s what I’m referring to.

I honestly don’t understand what the arguments is saying…

It has not been proven that no god exists, just as it has not been proven that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist.

My reply was that it has been proven that the Flying Spaghettin Monster does not exist.

I don’t think the statement “No god exists” has enough information to be proven right or wrong, it all depends on what you mean by “god”.

Obviously, Apollo isn’t pulling the sun across the sky with his chariot, so that god has been proven to not exist.

 

[samiam1611]

All of your opinions about what is ‘flawed’ or not - whether or not that’s even the right word - is based on some vague, unspecified ‘feeling’? Yet you want to claim that you are rational?

Actually yes! Well minus the vague, unspecified part bc I just haven’t specified here.
But yeah, I think my feelings [or maybe a more apt term would be opinions or beliefs] were arrived at by rational thinking. Just bc something is a feeling doesn’t make it automatically irrational, goodness! Granted, I have felt this way for my entire life, but that doesn’t mean I made no attempt to disprove myself - indeed, I practically have a whole book in my head with rational arguments supporting my beliefs and especially rational arguments disproving the supernaturalness of religion. If I’m going to claim that others’ beliefs are irrational, best believe I am going to have rational arguments for my beliefs. The only ones I feel like are excused from elaborate defense of their beliefs are agnostics bc they don’t claim to know the truth. Although to avoid being accused of being stubborn or self-righteous, I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
Philosopher Robert Flint described it as "If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist… if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist " <--------me

 

[Betterave]

Actually yes! Well minus the vague, unspecified part bc I just haven’t specified here.

So: “Don’t worry, I’m rational alright - trust me; I just like to keep my rationality to myself!”

But yeah, I think my feelings [or maybe a more apt term would be opinions or beliefs] were arrived at by rational thinking.

Of course that’s how you feel…

Just bc something is a feeling doesn’t make it automatically irrational, goodness!

Goodness, of course! But the fact remains that without a public expression of that rationality your comments aren’t very interesting or convincing. But since you like the FSM-argument, maybe you don’t care about that? You think that what is important is expressing your view (regardless of how implausible it will likely seem to others), not expressing the grounds for your view? (Maybe not, but that appears to be your MO so far…)

Granted, I have felt this way for my entire life, but that doesn’t mean I made no attempt to disprove myself - indeed, I practically have a whole book in my head with rational arguments supporting my beliefs and especially rational arguments disproving the supernaturalness of religion. If I’m going to claim that others’ beliefs are irrational, best believe I am going to have rational arguments for my beliefs. The only ones I feel like are excused from elaborate defense of their beliefs are agnostics bc they don’t claim to know the truth. Although to avoid being accused of being stubborn or self-righteous, I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

Well we’ve all got whole ‘books’ in our heads (some of us have them on our bookshelves too ), so your pointing this out is really not very interesting.

Philosopher Robert Flint described it as "If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist… if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist " <--------me

Yes, that’s natural; that doesn’t mean that such a man’s failure “to find any good reason for believing that there is a God” is grounded in his being rational.