Where can god exist?

HoldMyHand
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-09-16
User is offlineOffline
Where can god exist?

Where are the gaps in knowledge that hold open the possibility of a god?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Anywhere he wants.   Look

Anywhere he wants.

 

Look up pantheism. Or deism. 


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
God is able to exist in

God is able to exist in empty Folger's cans and unused pneumatic tires.


HoldMyHand
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-09-16
User is offlineOffline
Pantheism is "god is all".

Pantheism is "god is all". How convient.

Modern day deism incorporates the scientific method.

Where are the gaps in knowledge that allows an elusive god the possibility of existence?


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Anywhere the individual

Anywhere the individual believer lacks knowledge.  If they don't understand it, they will say goddidit.  Even if you are able to prove that goddidn'tdoit, they will resort to godgaveyoutheknowledgetofigureitout.  (I used to use this one.)

 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: ....they will

jce wrote:

....they will resort to godgaveyoutheknowledgetofigureitout. (I used to use this one.)

Sadly this is the most aggravating one. Instead of giving themselves credit for years of hard work and discipline to study or become proficient at something the credit is given to 'god'.

"God made it possible for me to become a doctor."

"God made it possible for me to be a pro football player."

"God made it possible for me to beat the shit out of someone in the boxing ring."

 

UGH!! People need to take credit for the hard work they do to achieve such things instead of saying, "godgaveyoutheknowledgetofigureitout".

 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand wrote: Where are

HoldMyHand wrote:
Where are the gaps in knowledge that hold open the possibility of a god?

According to scripture he lives up in the clouds.  Sadly that was before the invention of the airplane and he got sucked up by a 747.  No more god but plenty of godbits littering the ground. 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand wrote: Where are

HoldMyHand wrote:
Where are the gaps in knowledge that hold open the possibility of a god?

  The unfalsifiable, the untestable, the unempirical, the incoherent, and the irrational.


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand wrote: Where

HoldMyHand wrote:

Where are the gaps in knowledge that allows an elusive god the possibility of existence?

Try the one at the very beginning.  You know, the one prior to the big bang.   


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: "God made it

BGH wrote:
"God made it possible for me to beat the shit out of someone in the boxing ring."

So, you don't think god made it possible for you to intellectually beat the shit out of someone in a debate about religion?  LOL

btw - I said I used to use this one.  Now that my black eyes are healing from the beating you gave me, I see that you were right.  (j/k)

Oh - HoldMyHand - I meant to add earlier that there is another type of god belief that should not be confused with god of the gaps although it is very similar.  I call it 'god of the comfort level' and there are a few members here that believe in it.  These are extremely intelligent people that understand there is no god of the gaps but have reached the conclusion that there is something out there greater than they are.  No dogma, no doctrine - just a personal belief.  I mention this so that you are aware that there is a difference even if they appear similar on the surface. 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand wrote: Where

HoldMyHand wrote:

Where are the gaps in knowledge that allows an elusive god the possibility of existence?

Gaps?

There is no knowledge that allows for the possiblity of a "god"s existence.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
All depends on the

All depends on the definition.  If you worship your cat as a god, well, there it is... licking its godly ass on your couch. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand wrote: Where are

HoldMyHand wrote:
Where are the gaps in knowledge that hold open the possibility of a god?

 The universe.

*gong* 

 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: All

stuntgibbon wrote:
All depends on the definition.
Yes
Quote:
If you worship your cat as a god, well, there it is... licking its godly ass on your couch.
I didn't know a bulldozer could lick its ass Laughing

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


HoldMyHand
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-09-16
User is offlineOffline
Correct me if I am wrong,

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is not an ounce of evidence to support a theological or personal god.

 I am open to the possibility of a vague god concept, since we do not know everything about the universe.  I find it difficult to define this sort of god and I find it irrelevant in my everyday life.  I guess what I am trying to say, is there any logical possibilities for a god concept to exist?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand wrote:

HoldMyHand wrote:

I guess what I am trying to say, is there any logical possibilities for a god concept to exist?

 

Yes. I see possibilites in Cosmology and Information theory.

 

That the purpose of life is to percieve the information.

 

Also with Digital physics 

 

{added link} 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Correct me if I am

Quote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is not an ounce of evidence to support a theological or personal god.

I am open to the possibility of a vague god concept, since we do not know everything about the universe. I find it difficult to define this sort of god and I find it irrelevant in my everyday life. I guess what I am trying to say, is there any logical possibilities for a god concept to exist?

I have never seen an ounce of evidence to support a theological or personal god. Further, I have seen quite a bit of evidence against such a thing. Further, the concept of a personal god, invoking the supernatural, is incoherent, so even theologians are beyond their epistemological rights to say anything about such a being.

Some people try to justify some sort of natural super-duper god thingy, but I've never seen them get much past pantheism, which is just atheism with a little glitz on the title. The fact is, in postulating any kind of being that can properly be called god, you must:

1) provide a natural explanation for its existence (what caused it)

2) provide a natural explanation of how intelligence could exist outside of what we know as life (physical entities with hereditary replication, etc...)

3) provide a natural explanation for what this thing does, and how it can be observed and tested.

So far all I've seen from those who would like to postulate a natural god are speculations without any actual science behind them, like saying, "The universe is information, and god is the infinite consciousness that processes that information" or other such nonsense.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: 1)

Hambydammit wrote:

1) provide a natural explanation for its existence (what caused it)

 

Nothing. It is eternal, not everything needs a creation. 

 

Quote:
 

2) provide a natural explanation of how intelligence could exist outside of what we know as life (physical entities with hereditary replication, etc...)

 

 

 Information processing. That is how our brains work. By measuring the inequalities (data). The universe is full of data.

 

Quote:

3) provide a natural explanation for what this thing does, and how it can be observed and tested. 

 

 What it does is give rise to matter, for example.

How it can be observed/tested: 

Matter is formed through data processing (W bosons are the data for the weak force, for example) tested and confirmed via particle accelerators.

 

Gives rise to other universes

How it can be observed/tested:

 L.I.S.A Sky probe

LHC collider

S.L.O.A.N Sky survey.

Dark matter (There is a theory that dark matter is caused by gravity form other universes leaking into ours) 

 

 

 

Do I get a nobel prize? 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand wrote: Correct

HoldMyHand wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is not an ounce of evidence to support a theological or personal god.

You would be correct.

Quote:
I am open to the possibility of a vague god concept, since we do not know everything about the universe.

Well that's just silly. And it is only encouraging the "god of the gaps" idea that you were originally criticizing.

Quote:
I find it difficult to define this sort of god and I find it irrelevant in my everyday life.

I might hold the view that a god that can be defined is a god not worth paying much attention to.

Quote:
I guess what I am trying to say, is there any logical possibilities for a god concept to exist?

Not likely. 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote: God is able to

Nero wrote:
God is able to exist in empty Folger's cans and unused pneumatic tires.

You're wrong.  God can only exist in Maxwell House cans, not Folger's.  Duh.  

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Nero

pariahjane wrote:

Nero wrote:
God is able to exist in empty Folger's cans and unused pneumatic tires.

You're wrong.  God can only exist in Maxwell House cans, not Folger's.  Duh.  

BLASPHEMER!  Clearly, a schism has occurred.  I am of the Orthodox Coffee House (the Percolators), and you are of the Reformed Coffee Movement (Starbuckers). 

Good luck finding God in Maxwell House cans.  The Book clearly states that:  On the Second Day, He looked into His mug and saw there coffee.  He drank of it and said that what was in his cup was "the best part of waking up."  Nowhere does He say that it is good 'til the last drop.

QED!

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand wrote: Where are

HoldMyHand wrote:
Where are the gaps in knowledge that hold open the possibility of a god?

The gap in the New York skyline. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:

HoldMyHand wrote:
Where are the gaps in knowledge that hold open the possibility of a god?

The gap in the New York skyline.

Thank you!

That was one of the most powerful statements I have seen you make, and you make some pretty powerful ones from time to time. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Captain, until you actually

Captain, until you actually refute any of the numerous posts by me and others who have rendered your silly theory... um... silly, I'm not going to keep going around in circles with you.  However, I do thank you for illustrating the silly kind of theory I was talking about so the OP can see it first hand.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:

HoldMyHand wrote:
Where are the gaps in knowledge that hold open the possibility of a god?

The gap in the New York skyline.

Oh that's right cheeky, that is. I like it.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand

HoldMyHand wrote:

Pantheism is "god is all". How convient.

What do you mean "convenient". Because it doesn't fit what ever schema you are groping at doesn't mean you can dismiss it out of hand. 

 

Quote:

Modern day deism incorporates the scientific method.

 See above comment

Quote:
 

Where are the gaps in knowledge that allows an elusive god the possibility of existence?

 

Here's the problem. We don't know where the gaps are because if we knew where they were they wouldn't be gaps. 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Captain, until you actually refute any of the numerous posts by me and others who have rendered your silly theory... um... silly, I'm not going to keep going around in circles with you. However, I do thank you for illustrating the silly kind of theory I was talking about so the OP can see it first hand.

Your kept asking what 'gap' my theory would fill. And I kept answering Quantum Paradoxes.  

 

It is common knowledge that many things, (matter for example) work through principles in data exchange. 

 

So I have no idea  how you have such a hard time at this.


HoldMyHand
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-09-16
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
HoldMyHand wrote:

Pantheism is "god is all". How convient.

What do you mean "convenient". Because it doesn't fit what ever schema you are groping at doesn't mean you can dismiss it out of hand.

How does one arrive at pantheism? How can you test for pantheism? I do not see how pantheism is reonciled with the Big Freeze or Heat Death of the universe. What sort of god would send itself to death? If the universe is oscillatory, then it begs the question on how did god originite.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: How can you test for

Quote:
How can you test for pantheism?

There's the important question.  Let me know if you ever get an answer.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand

HoldMyHand wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
HoldMyHand wrote:

Pantheism is "god is all". How convient.

What do you mean "convenient". Because it doesn't fit what ever schema you are groping at doesn't mean you can dismiss it out of hand.

How does one arrive at pantheism? How can you test for pantheism? I do not see how pantheism is reonciled with the Big Freeze or Heat Death of the universe. What sort of god would send itself to death? If the universe is oscillatory, then it begs the question on how did god originite.

 

 

What existed before the big bang? How did it originate? There is no better answer for this than how did god originate.  Time has no meaning before the big band. "Originate" implies causality. Causality requires time. Provide a definition of time that works prior to the big bang.  


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:
Premature erection of alleged philosophical problems is sometimes a smokescreen for mischief.

 

Your sig needs a re-write.

 

Premature erection of alleged philosophical problems results in premature ejaculation of stupid ideas.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand wrote: How

HoldMyHand wrote:

How does one arrive at pantheism? How can you test for pantheism? 

 

 

You don't. You take the data of science (cosmology, evolution etc...) and try to piece it together.  

 While the science itself is testable, (Big Bang etc..)

The conclusion of God is not.

 

Quote:

I do not see how pantheism is reonciled with the Big Freeze or Heat Death of the universe. What sort of god would send itself to death? If the universe is oscillatory, then it begs the question on how did god originite.

 

 

New universes are being born as we speak. 


HoldMyHand
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-09-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: New

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
New universes are being born as we speak. 

 I am not an expert on the mutli-verse theory, but I thought it was scientific speculation and not a confirmed theory.  Even if universes are being born as we speak are there new god being born simultaneously or is it the same god that birthed this universe? 

 Do the physical laws take on the same parametric values in these new universes? 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Premature erection

Quote:
Premature erection of alleged philosophical problems results in premature ejaculation of stupid ideas.

If it were mine to alter, I would.  Alas, I am not presumptuous enough to alter Dawkins.  He's written a lot more books than me, and has more letters after his name.

Plus, he's a pretty cool dude, and I wouldn't do that to him.

Smiling

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I am not an expert

Quote:
I am not an expert on the mutli-verse theory, but I thought it was scientific speculation and not a confirmed theory.  Even if universes are being born as we speak are there new god being born simultaneously or is it the same god that birthed this universe? 

 Do the physical laws take on the same parametric values in these new universes?

Betcha i know how this is going to end.

HoldMyHand, you could save yourself and Pineapple some trouble by reading this thread.  

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Premature erection of alleged philosophical problems results in premature ejaculation of stupid ideas.

If it were mine to alter, I would. Alas, I am not presumptuous enough to alter Dawkins. He's written a lot more books than me, and has more letters after his name.

Plus, he's a pretty cool dude, and I wouldn't do that to him.

Smiling

 

Naw. I wouldn't presume to put words in Dawkins mouth, either. But starting any sentence with "premature erection" creates so many rich opportunities for word play that I had to do something. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Naw. I wouldn't

Quote:
Naw. I wouldn't presume to put words in Dawkins mouth, either. But starting any sentence with "premature erection" creates so many rich opportunities for word play that I had to do something.

Yeah, but you didn't think of saying, "creates so many rich opportunities for oral variations."

I would have thought of that. 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand wrote: Do the

HoldMyHand wrote:

Do the physical laws take on the same parametric values in these new universes?

 

No.

 

And read the thread Hamby linked to 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand wrote: Even

HoldMyHand wrote:

Even if universes are being born as we speak are there new god being born simultaneously or is it the same god that birthed this universe?

 

It's the same God.  See my other topic about this


HoldMyHand
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-09-16
User is offlineOffline
Honestly, I have not read

Honestly, I have not read your threads.  Can you succintly tell me how it is possible for god to exist or have you already redefined your definition to precision? 

 To let you know, I am a noncognitivist.  I have no idea what god means until you define it.  Can you define god for me? 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand

HoldMyHand wrote:

Honestly, I have not read your threads. Can you succintly tell me how it is possible for god to exist or have you already redefined your definition to precision?

To let you know, I am a noncognitivist. I have no idea what god means until you define it. Can you define god for me?

 

Read the links. It should give you some context. 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand

HoldMyHand wrote:

Pantheism is "god is all". How convient.

Modern day deism incorporates the scientific method.

Where are the gaps in knowledge that allows an elusive god the possibility of existence?

 I suspect this will not be well recieved but i shall say it anyhow.

 

coherence.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

I have never seen an ounce of evidence to support a theological or personal god. Further, I have seen quite a bit of evidence against such a thing. Further, the concept of a personal god, invoking the supernatural, is incoherent, so even theologians are beyond their epistemological rights to say anything about such a being.

Some people try to justify some sort of natural super-duper god thingy, but I've never seen them get much past pantheism, which is just atheism with a little glitz on the title. The fact is, in postulating any kind of being that can properly be called god, you must:

1) provide a natural explanation for its existence (what caused it)

An echo from its future vitality resonated back from here and now across time.

 

hambydammit wrote:

2) provide a natural explanation of how intelligence could exist outside of what we know as life (physical entities with hereditary replication, etc...)

it is coherent. our observed existence is decoherent, thus coherent existence is outside of it.

hambydammit wrote:

3) provide a natural explanation for what this thing does, and how it can be observed and tested.

the best description i have read was written by someone else and not me. it is the ultimate gestalt. a boundless pool of everything energy can be timeless in the sense that it is unified with emerging consciousness, your *coherent* future mind is already echoed within it in your known past.

*coherent in this context is all your potential including that which you will never consciously meet

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
HoldMyHand

HoldMyHand wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
HoldMyHand wrote:

Pantheism is "god is all". How convient.

What do you mean "convenient". Because it doesn't fit what ever schema you are groping at doesn't mean you can dismiss it out of hand.

How does one arrive at pantheism? How can you test for pantheism? I do not see how pantheism is reonciled with the Big Freeze or Heat Death of the universe. What sort of god would send itself to death? If the universe is oscillatory, then it begs the question on how did god originite.

 

 

Cpt answered this perfectly with the statement that a multiverse is continually sprouting.  Why this theory has weight is that no fundamental material of our universe is ever in just one state. maximum entropy is simultaneously an unborn universe and the spaces in between.

 

aside: if i may be a little controversial here, i like to think that similar to the mythology of angels, we possess wings of superposition, and like Michio Kaku i tend to believe we may one day harness the ability to fly with those wings, away from any impending heat death, as we desire. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Tankalish
Theist
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-07-06
User is offlineOffline
What a loaded question. Why

What a loaded question. Why should I accept your fundamental theological assumptions in arguing the nature of God? I mean, you could have gotten over this if you had read some Aquinas and realized that the Orthodox Christian tradition purported an analogical understanding of God, in which God fully inhabits and exceeds all of Creation. And God has to be testable? Findable? Tastable? Why? First of all, if God exceeds our level of being, that is, escaping the fallacy of univocity of being, then there is no basis for these assumptions. Second of all, there is reference to God in an unbroken tradition back to the cross and adequate historical evidence to suggest that Jesus Christ, as a historical figure, did exist. So perhaps the burden of proof lies on you showing that there was not a rupture in the veil between deity and creation with the Christ figure? Or at least proving that science is the God you raise it up to be and something more than a tool. I mean, some of you guys are more dogmatic about this stuff than I am. Seriously. Just let me know when they publish the Gospels of Dawkins and Harris, their intellectual vigor will surely blow my theological assumptions right out the back of my head, hurrah for the inevitability of meta-narratives. Oh wait, I mean of science.