Is God a philosophical question or a scientific one? {edited title}

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Is God a philosophical question or a scientific one? {edited title}

Does God exist? What is our purpose?

I think those are more philosophical questions than scienctific. To say the existence of a God is more a question for science imples that God and science are mutually exclusive. They are not.

People on the board know I am well versed in science. Ken Miller is a very intelligent biologist and a devout Christian.

Whether or not there is a God or what is the purpose of life is best found in philosophy, not science, and hence up to the individual person, not the scientific community.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I beg to differ. And I

I beg to differ. And I think you are making a fundamental confusion pertaining to what it means by the word science. Science is merely a word for the testing of any empirical claim about the world. Hence, your implication is that the existence/non-existence of God is not a testable/falsifiable claim about the world. This is absurd. There may be a saving grace to that, however, and that would be if one could offer a mathematical proof of God (as Godel did), which is defended solely by axiomatic retortion, instead of empirical evidence. How else are we supposed to gain knowledge of the world, and please do not say faith, because there is surely no more volatile or unreliaible an epistemology as faith. 

More to the point, you haven't actually justified your dichotomy of "science" and "philosophy". Empirical evidence gathering (empiricism, which is science) is an arm of epistemic philosophy. You have not actually specified what it means to say "philosophy" is a method of gaining knowledge about the world, hence the claim God. THe word philosophy merely means "thinking about thinking", so you will forgive me for being unsatisfied when you seperate philosophical questions from scientific ones, without actually specififying what it means to say something is a "philosophical" question. That could mean anything. Is it a question of moral philosophy or ethics? Ontology? Epistemology? Rationality or empiricism? The term philosophy is so all encompassing that you could easily include science as an arm of it. This would make the whole OP meaningless.

The question you beg pertains to how we gain knowledge, or epistemology. Empirical evidence (science), is one way. Rationality (deriving of logical truth) (these two are not mutually exclusive) is another way. But you have not actually shown us a seperate "philosophical" epistemology by which we would learn about God...so, you haven't really made a point.

It seems you have hence had a change of heart. You used to be so into the fusion of God and physics. What's up? 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: I beg to

deludedgod wrote:

I beg to differ. And I think you are making a fundamental confusion pertaining to what it means by the word science. Science is merely a word for the testing of any empirical claim about the world. Hence, your implication is that the existence/non-existence of God is not a testable/falsifiable claim about the world. This is absurd. There may be a saving grace to that, however, and that would be if one could offer a mathematical proof of God (as Godel did), which is defended solely by axiomatic retortion, instead of empirical evidence. How else are we supposed to gain knowledge of the world, and please do not say faith, because there is surely no more volatile or unreliaible an epistemology as faith.

 

 We could use science to say whether or not God is plausible

 

Dawkins devots a whole chapter to show that God is implausable. I believe Dawkins himself says we must work on probabilities. 

 Axiom proofs could be flawed, and it may take a while for the mistake to pop up but they are relatively difficult to detect.

If I were to say 'mixing X chemical with Y chemical will cause an explosion ', I could go to a lab and mix X and Y and see. 

If I were to make a claim such as 'There is an universe made up entirely of anti-matter' I can't go and look at every single universe in the multi-verse. But I can use our knowledge of physics to determine if a universe could be made out of anti-matter. 

 

Our knowledge of physics is constantly changing. So proofs based on those could be wrong since we could be missing something.

 

 

 So we gain our knowledge through probabilities of the stuff we cannot observe/test and gain knowledge through confirmation of the stuff we can. Even if we get a Theory of Everything, it will not answer the question of whether or not a God exists.

 

 

 

Quote:

More to the point, you haven't actually justified your dichotomy of "science" and "philosophy". Empirical evidence gathering (empiricism, which is science) is an arm of epistemic philosophy. You have not actually specified what it means to say "philosophy" is a method of gaining knowledge about the world, hence the claim God. THe word philosophy merely means "thinking about thinking", so you will forgive me for being unsatisfied when you seperate philosophical questions from scientific ones, without actually specififying what it means to say something is a "philosophical" question. That could mean anything. Is it a question of moral philosophy or ethics? Ontology? Epistemology? Rationality or empiricism? The term philosophy is so all encompassing that you could easily include science as an arm of it. This would make the whole OP meaningless.

 

Okay, you caught me, I'm not well versed in philosophy.

 

 I think Epistemology is the branch. We can use science (Knowledge) to determine if there can be a God, as many scientists do.

 

I said it's a philosophical question since we cannot prove one way or the other. We can only work in probabilities.

 

 

 

Quote:

The question you beg pertains to how we gain knowledge, or epistemology. Empirical evidence (science), is one way. Rationality (deriving of logical truth) (these two are not mutually exclusive) is another way. But you have not actually shown us a seperate "philosophical" epistemology by which we would learn about God...so, you haven't really made a point.

 

The point I guess I'm trying to get across is that science and God are not mutaully exclusive. We could learn about God through science.

 

As my Theist friend once said 'Who do you think started the Big Bang/evolution? How weak is your faith that you cannot accept science? God used science to create.'

 

 

Quote:

It seems you have hence had a change of heart. You used to be so into the fusion of God and physics. What's up?

 

No, I am not trying to use physics to prove God, I want to use it to show he is plausable.  


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The point I guess

Quote:
The point I guess I'm trying to get across is that science and God are not mutaully exclusive. We could learn about God through science.

I'm thrilled to remove god from the ranks of the unfalsifiable.  Could you give us a definition which we could falsify?

Quote:
As my Theist friend once said 'Who do you think started the Big Bang/evolution? How weak is your faith that you cannot accept science? God used science to create.'

This simply begs the question of what created god, just like every other cosmological argument.  This is so tired, it needs to be shot like a dying horse.

 

Quote:
No, I am not trying to use physics to prove God, I want to use it to show he is plausable.

Since you're familiar with science, you know we have to have a workable, falsifiable definition to work with.  Are you prepared to give this?

Realize that any mention of supernatural will render your entire argument meaningless, philosophically and scientifically!

 

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: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
The point I guess I'm trying to get across is that science and God are not mutaully exclusive. We could learn about God through science.

I'm thrilled to remove god from the ranks of the unfalsifiable. Could you give us a definition which we could falsify?

 

My infintie consciousness topic as a definition?

 

Quote:

Quote:
As my Theist friend once said 'Who do you think started the Big Bang/evolution? How weak is your faith that you cannot accept science? God used science to create.'

This simply begs the question of what created god, just like every other cosmological argument. This is so tired, it needs to be shot like a dying horse.

 True, but the common response is God is eternal. And the common counter-argument is 'How can a complex thing be eternal?'

My answer is whatever was eternal (If there even was something, ex-nilho is possible, but even then the laws of physics would be) would be complex. 

 

Quote:

Quote:
No, I am not trying to use physics to prove God, I want to use it to show he is plausable.

Since you're familiar with science, you know we have to have a workable, falsifiable definition to work with. Are you prepared to give this?

Realize that any mention of supernatural will render your entire argument meaningless, philosophically and scientifically!

 

I'm sorry, did I not just say that we can only work in probabilites?


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

Quote:
My infintie consciousness topic as a definition?

I haven't read it.  I will, but I'm already skeptical just from the words "infinite" and "consciousness."  I'm guessing that I already know the refutation, but I'm nothing if not a glutton for punishment.

Quote:
True, but the common response is God is eternal. And the common counter-argument is 'How can a complex thing be eternal?'

And the common response still begs the question, and gives no justification for why logic should be suspended for this answer.

I don't commonly make that counter argument.

 

Quote:
My answer is whatever was eternal (If there even was something, ex-nilho is possible, but even then the laws of physics would be) would be complex.

Huh?

Sounds like un unsupported claim that simply leads back to the original question, which still begs the question.

 

Quote:
I'm sorry, did I not just say that we can only work in probabilites?

The probability of anything being supernatural is zero, similar to the way that there is a zero probability of a married bachelor existing.

If a definition precludes existence, then there is zero probability.  Supernatural literally cannot refer to anything.  You know this.

 

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: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
My infintie consciousness topic as a definition?

I haven't read it. I will, but I'm already skeptical just from the words "infinite" and "consciousness." I'm guessing that I already know the refutation, but I'm nothing if not a glutton for punishment.

 

Here it is

 

I am shaking in my boots. They're arguing with my conclusion, not my science.

 

Quote:

Quote:
True, but the common response is God is eternal. And the common counter-argument is 'How can a complex thing be eternal?'

And the common response still begs the question, and gives no justification for why logic should be suspended for this answer.

I don't commonly make that counter argument.

What counter argument do you use then? I saw Dawkins use that and several other people on the board.

 

Quote:

Quote:
My answer is whatever was eternal (If there even was something, ex-nilho is possible, but even then the laws of physics would be) would be complex.

Huh?

Sounds like un unsupported claim that simply leads back to the original question, which still begs the question.

Of what?

 

Quote:

Quote:
I'm sorry, did I not just say that we can only work in probabilites?

The probability of anything being supernatural is zero, similar to the way that there is a zero probability of a married bachelor existing.

If a definition precludes existence, then there is zero probability. Supernatural literally cannot refer to anything. You know this.

 

So why not a natural God?


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

Quote:
What counter argument do you use then?

I've yet to need a counter argument because no argument has avoided the problem created by ending infinite regress.  

I think you're mistaking the statements of Dawkins, et al, as counter-arguments when they're actually more akin to "Furthermore, this and that and the other" statements.  They're not necessary, but add to the philosophical hole that has already been dug.

 

Quote:

My answer is whatever was eternal (If there even was something, ex-nilho is possible, but even then the laws of physics would be) would be complex.

Huh?

Sounds like un unsupported claim that simply leads back to the original question, which still begs the question.

Of what?

"Whatever is eternal would be complex" is an unsupported claim.  I've seen no logic dictating this.  To state such a thing is making the assumption of a being that has not been shown to be necessary.  Thus, the question is begged.

Unless, of course, you're not trying to prove god as that eternal thing, in which case, the question is begged in the leap from an eternal existence to an eternal consciousness.

As for your other post, you'll be happy to know that it wasn't going where I thought it would, but I still don't see any relevance to the original thought here.  You've yet to provide a definition for a natural god that doesn't beg the question of how or why such a thing exists.

 

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
Oh... I recognize that a

Oh... I recognize that a definition does not have to be philosophically sound.  In other words, I know you don't have to provide the philosophical justification for X, just the definition, for it to be falsifiable.

I'm trying to work with you on two fronts here, but you seem to be crossing from philosophy to empiricism rather haphazardly, and I thought you wanted god to be a philosophical question.   If this is so, then answer the question of origin without begging the question.  If you intend to use empiricism only, then you can drop the whole philosophy thing and just give us a definition so that we can test for its existence.

 

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: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:

My answer is whatever was eternal (If there even was something, ex-nilho is possible, but even then the laws of physics would be) would be complex.

Huh?

Sounds like un unsupported claim that simply leads back to the original question, which still begs the question.

Of what?

"Whatever is eternal would be complex" is an unsupported claim. I've seen no logic dictating this. To state such a thing is making the assumption of a being that has not been shown to be necessary. Thus, the question is begged.

Unless, of course, you're not trying to prove god as that eternal thing, in which case, the question is begged in the leap from an eternal existence to an eternal consciousness.

The universe is not eternal there was a starting point 13.7 billion years ago.

The multiverse could be however. We could have 'budded off' that universe. And guess what Hammby? The multiverse might be falsafiable. Gravity could be leaking from the other universes.

 

String theory states 11 dimensions. This could also be falsafiable, but we might need to get to planck length at the particle accelerators. 

 

 

 

Quote:

As for your other post, you'll be happy to know that it wasn't going where I thought it would, but I still don't see any relevance to the original thought here. You've yet to provide a definition for a natural god that doesn't beg the question of how or why such a thing exists.

 

Where did you think it was going?

 

I'll change the title to 'Is God a philosophical or scientific question?' 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The universe is not

Quote:
The universe is not eternal there was a starting point 13.7 billion years ago.

The universe in its current state is not eternal, etc.

We know absolutely nothing of before the big bang, so we can't say that there was or was not something before.

Quote:
The multiverse could be however. We could have 'budded off' that universe. And guess what Hammby? The multiverse might be falsafiable. Gravity could be leaking from the other universes.

I'm aware of these theories. I don't quite see how this relates to the existence of god. Why don't you just define the god you want to test for?

Simple:

I theorize that God is _______________.

Quote:
String theory states 11 dimensions. This could also be falsafiable, but we might need to get to planck length at the particle accelerators.

Again, I'm aware of string theory, and I'm baffled as to how this theory relates to the existence of god, since god has yet to be defined.

Quote:
Where did you think it was going?

Data and infinite consciousness, as a title, seemed to be leading towards some kind of pantheist definition of god. I've seen this done often, and it almost always leads to a great leap from pantheism to deism, which, of course, is a non sequitur.

Quote:
I'll change the title to 'Is God a philosophical or scientific question?'

I think the title more accurately reflects the topic.

I am still puzzled as to why you would think it's anything other than scientific, though. If the thing really exists, it might be that he can be deduced without direct empirical observation. After all, that's how we stumbled on to the concept of dark matter, and how string theory developed. I have no problem with theoretical physics. I have problems with suggesting that we should look for a being who doesn't have a definition, and is not needed to solve any existing theoretical problems! Yes, it's true we don't know what caused the big bang, but I can't fathom why we should assume an intelligence did it, since intelligence requires matter and energy, which, according to all of our observations, came into their current existence at the big bang. This just begs the question of what caused that intelligence, and how it could possibly exist. To my knowledge, there is no theory that even remotely allows such a possibility.

What you're suggesting isn't science. It's wild, unsubstantiated speculation.

Again, I will ask you:

What is this definition of god that you would like science to address?

 

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: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Again,

Hambydammit wrote:

Again, I will ask you:

What is this definition of god that you would like science to address?

 

 

The definition in my infinite consciousness topic. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BUMP

BUMP


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I just reread that post for

I just reread that post for the fourth or fifth time, and am at a loss to find your definition of god.

First, I am baffled as to how you flip around consciousness and life.  The first life was almost certainly little more than pre-RNA of some sort that began a cycle of reproduction -- most notably, with the addition of heredity.  To say that it was conscious is absurd.

Clearly, life precedes consciousness.

Second, I don't understand what the interpretation of data has to do with anything.  I don't disagree with your idea of potential information, but I fail to see a definition of god in it.

Please.  Humor me on this, because I can't see where you're going.

Fill in the blank:  I theorize that god is ______________.

 

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

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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Just to drop in quick, the

Just to drop in quick, the reason I am no longer part of this discussion is because my return post got deleted and I couldnt be bothered to retype it. I just dropped in to point out a few things:

Quote:

Axiom proofs could be flawed, and it may take a while for the mistake to pop up but they are relatively difficult to detect.

I beg your pardon? Do my eyes decieve me? That's ridiculous. One cannot find a flaw in an axiom. There is a reason it is called defense by retortion. Axioms, by definition, are tautologically self-evident. Any argument whereby one would attempt to find a "flaw" in an axiom would inherently be doomed since such proof must rely on said axioms for validity, otherwise it would be gibberish. 

To wit:

Could you find a "subtle flaw" in A=A?

Quote:

 Who do you think started the Big Bang

False vacuum fluctuations generated by the Casimir effect, which triggered hyperrapid inflation

Quote:

 evolution

Ribonucleid acid and sphingolipid membranes, electrophosphrylated amino acids and purine/pyrimidines.  

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Just to

deludedgod wrote:

Just to drop in quick, the reason I am no longer part of this discussion is because my return post got deleted and I couldnt be bothered to retype it. I just dropped in to point out a few things:

Quote:

Axiom proofs could be flawed, and it may take a while for the mistake to pop up but they are relatively difficult to detect.

I beg your pardon? Do my eyes decieve me? That's ridiculous. One cannot find a flaw in an axiom. There is a reason it is called defense by retortion. Axioms, by definition, are tautologically self-evident. Any argument whereby one would attempt to find a "flaw" in an axiom would inherently be doomed since such proof must rely on said axioms for validity, otherwise it would be gibberish.

To wit:

Could you find a "subtle flaw" in A=A?

 

Perhaps I should have said a flaw in logic, rather than Axioms.

 

You have been to this board for a while, and have surely seen flaws in logic. 

 

 

Quote:
 

Quote:

Who do you think started the Big Bang

False vacuum fluctuations generated by the Casimir effect, which triggered hyperrapid inflation

Quote:

evolution

Ribonucleid acid and sphingolipid membranes, electrophosphrylated amino acids and purine/pyrimidines.

 

Yes, I know, (okay maybe not exactly the evolution part) but those are the words of my friend. And I respect his position since it will not hinder science.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Forgive my ignorance, but

Forgive my ignorance, but the only training I have is in mathematical logic, not philosophical logic.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I just

Hambydammit wrote:

I just reread that post for the fourth or fifth time, and am at a loss to find your definition of god.

First, I am baffled as to how you flip around consciousness and life. The first life was almost certainly little more than pre-RNA of some sort that began a cycle of reproduction -- most notably, with the addition of heredity. To say that it was conscious is absurd.

Clearly, life precedes consciousness.

I address this in the topic responses

Quote:

Last page. 

Second, I don't understand what the interpretation of data has to do with anything. I don't disagree with your idea of potential information, but I fail to see a definition of god in it.

Please. Humor me on this, because I can't see where you're going.

Fill in the blank: I theorize that god is ______________.

 

 

I theorize that god is the infinite consciousness. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I theorize that god

Quote:
I theorize that god is the infinite consciousness.

Captain, this is meaningless unless you have further defined it. I know you talked about infinite in terms of potential, and consciousness... well, I am still dumbfounded that you could flip around consciousness and life without so much as a "how do you do."

But, even playing along for a brief moment, how do you address the following?

1) If there is a consciousness that encompasses all matter/energy, it is natural, right?

2) If it is natural, it affects matter/energy in some way, right?

3) In what way do you postulate this intelligence manifesting its will, and what effects would a scientist expect to see in the physical universe that would be empirical proof of the existence of this intelligence?

4) Do you postulate that this intelligence evolved after the big bang?

5) If yes, by what source of energy do you postulate the um... whatever the equivalent of neurons are for this thing... exchanging information? The distances are so immense, that even travelling at the speed of light, a being encompassing the universe would have to ponder a decision for trillions of years just to have time for the simplest of thoughts to travel across that much space.

5a) If no, what the hell?! You intend to just trapse past planck time and insert your own reality in there? How could you possibly justify this?

6) If this being did not evolve, by what process do you postulate its coming to its current existence?

7) What is the biological theory that accounts for this possibility?  We are talking about life, right?  Or are you postulating consciousness without life?

8 ) If so, what the hell?  What is your basis for this? 

You see what I'm getting at, Captain? Unless I'm gravely mistaken, you don't have answers for all of these questions. You're formulating a being based on what you'd like it to be, and selectively fishing through theories to see if you can find something to make it line up with your notion.

You're not doing science. You've got your conclusion, and you're trying to find some facts -- any facts, to back it up, despite the fact that science indicates that life is an organic process, and despite the fact that a being that could be called "god" has no niche to fill.

 

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

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


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Philosophical logic is, at

Philosophical logic is, at best, good at helping you form arguements correctly.  It is leagues away from being a way to determine meaning or if there is a god.  However, if you want the best possible logical arguements for the existence of God, I suggest you read the Five proofs for God by Aquinas.  And don't mistake me calling them the "best possible" arguements to mean that they are convincing.  He was simply the first to make logical arguements for the existence of God and in the roughly 700-800 years since Aquinas, no one has really improved upon them.   

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
cpt_pineapple wrote: I

cpt_pineapple wrote:
I theorize that god is the infinite consciousness.

 

I think you mean hypothesize.   

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I think you mean

Quote:
I think you mean hypothesize.

Once again, someone has taken my paragraphs of babble and reduced them to one word. One day I'll learn to be concise.

Not today...

In Captain's defense, I don't think he'd ever stoop to quoting anything so banal as all that refuted apologist tripe. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Captain) Smiling  In his further defense, I think I suckered him into using that word instead of the correct one.  Nevertheless, your observation is correct.

I think what he's trying to do is come up with a place that a god hypothesis could fit into theoretical physics. Presumably, this hypothesis would predict a need for such a being, and would further predict the evidence of its manifestations on the universe, in such a way that the math would only work out if such a being existed and said manifestations were necessary fulfilments of some theoretical physics equations.

So far I have not seen such detailed work, and am baffled at the conception of such a being. As with all such baseless theories, I'm going to wait for the science journal before I give it much of my worry time. I'm not saying he can't do it. I'm just saying the conceptual side of the thing seems a bit lacking so far. Last time I checked, it's not standard practice to go around trying to invent holes for conceptual beings to fill.

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: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: 1) If

Hambydammit wrote:

1) If there is a consciousness that encompasses all matter/energy, it is natural, right?

Yup

Quote:
 

2) If it is natural, it affects matter/energy in some way, right?

Yup

Quote:
 

3) In what way do you postulate this intelligence manifesting its will, and what effects would a scientist expect to see in the physical universe that would be empirical proof of the existence of this intelligence?

 Through us, our consciousness.

As for the proof. No, no direct proof, but it does not condratict any theories that I'm aware of.

 

 

 

Quote:

4) Do you postulate that this intelligence evolved after the big bang?

 

 

 See below.  (Answer to 5a)

 

Quote:
 

5) If yes, by what source of energy do you postulate the um... whatever the equivalent of neurons are for this thing... exchanging information? The distances are so immense, that even travelling at the speed of light, a being encompassing the universe would have to ponder a decision for trillions of years just to have time for the simplest of thoughts to travel across that much space.

Nothing needs to travel across the universe. It is all encompassing it is essentially Pantheism.

 

Quote:
 

5a) If no, what the hell?! You intend to just trapse past planck time and insert your own reality in there? How could you possibly justify this?

 No, I insert the multiverse. A valid theory.

 

Quote:

6) If this being did not evolve, by what process do you postulate its coming to its current existence?

The same way the multiverse came into existence.  

 

Quote:

7) What is the biological theory that accounts for this possibility? We are talking about life, right? Or are you postulating consciousness without life?

8 ) If so, what the hell? What is your basis for this?

I feel information theory/data exchange is more physics than biology.

 

I'm pretty sure the brain uses energy inequalities to fire neurons, and these neurons firing is what produces consciousness. So consiousness is produced through data interputation from the firing neurons. 

Deludedgod, did I get that right?

 

Quote:

You see what I'm getting at, Captain? Unless I'm gravely mistaken, you don't have answers for all of these questions. You're formulating a being based on what you'd like it to be, and selectively fishing through theories to see if you can find something to make it line up with your notion.

 I can ask you many questions about the universe and the proper response would be "I don't know".

The point is, if an atheist can say 'I don't know' why can't a Theist? Why must a Theist know every last detail?

 

 

 

Quote:

You're not doing science. You've got your conclusion, and you're trying to find some facts -- any facts, to back it up, despite the fact that science indicates that life is an organic process, and despite the fact that a being that could be called "god" has no niche to fill.

 

This is implying that God and science are mutually exclusive. 

If you want to understand my position better read

'The God Theory' by Bernard Haisch.

I don't have it on me though, my brother borrowed it (he loaned me 'The God Delusion' in exchange).


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: In

Hambydammit wrote:
In Captain's defense, I don't think he'd ever stoop to quoting anything so banal as all that refuted apologist tripe. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Captain) Smiling  In his further defense, I think I suckered him into using that word instead of the correct one.

 

No worries.  I would have made the same reply if an atheist or non-theist used theorized in such a way as well. Smiling

 

 

 

 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
captain_pineapple wrote: If

captain_pineapple wrote:
If you want to understand my position better read

'The God Theory' by Bernard Haisch.

 

Does Haisch outline various mechanisms that allow for the theoretical function of God?  I am seriously asking this becuase that is what the Intelligent Design hypothesis was sorely lacking since it simply stated simply stated "There must be X, becuase object Q is too complex to have occured by any natural process observed and understood by science" without really explainig the processes by which X made Q.

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I can ask you many

Quote:

I can ask you many questions about the universe and the proper response would be "I don't know".

The point is, if an atheist can say 'I don't know' why can't a Theist? Why must a Theist know every last detail?

When science says, "I don't know" they look for further facts. When they have them, they hypothesize and then test. At this point, maybe, just maybe, if a few preliminary tests indicate that further testing is warranted, they might mention the hypothesis in public.

You've kind of skipped over all that and filled up a bunch of "I don't knows" with hypothetical processes that don't have any parallel in science and speculations without any underlying foundation. This is not science.

I'd suggest that if you want to scientifically demonstrate god, you need to scientifically demonstrate a need for god. This is what you keep missing. If you're looking for something (like dark matter) you've found some math that ought to work, but doesn't, and you've identified what you're looking for as the thing that will fill in the missing puzzle piece and make these numbers work.

Do you have any preliminary data indicating a gap in a current theory, such that this information deity would fill?

Quote:
Nothing needs to travel across the universe. It is all encompassing it is essentially Pantheism.

How does this work?

Quote:
Through us, our consciousness.

As for the proof. No, no direct proof, but it does not condratict any theories that I'm aware of.

How?

Quote:
No, I insert the multiverse. A valid theory.

How do you justify this?

Quote:
The same way the multiverse came into existence.

How was that?

Quote:
I feel information theory/data exchange is more physics than biology.

What principle in physics are you using to justify consciousness/life without biology?

Have you worked out the math for this?

Quote:
'The God Theory' by Bernard Haisch.

I skimmed a few chapters in the bookstore a while back. Seemed to me like he was a pantheist. I admit, I just skimmed, so maybe I missed the part where his book justified religion.

Or, are you not justifying religion?

Are you trying to establish a being that doesn't accomplish anything and has no bearing on my life whatsoever? If so, I withdraw all my objections and wish you well on your fruitful endeavors.

 

 

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

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


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I'd

Hambydammit wrote:
I'd suggest that if you want to scientifically demonstrate god, you need to scientifically demonstrate a need for god.

 

This seems to be going against the Philosophy of Science.  Unless Pineapple holds that this is a natural god who has a clearly definable function in the enviornment that can be at least be observed.

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
'The God Theory' by Bernard Haisch.

I skimmed a few chapters in the bookstore a while back. Seemed to me like he was a pantheist. I admit, I just skimmed, so maybe I missed the part where his book justified religion.

Or, are you not justifying religion?

Are you trying to establish a being that doesn't accomplish anything and has no bearing on my life whatsoever? If so, I withdraw all my objections and wish you well on your fruitful endeavors.

 

 

 

I trying to justify a God, not a religion. 


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

Hambydammit wrote:

 

I'm thrilled to remove god from the ranks of the unfalsifiable. Could you give us a definition which we could falsify?

 

An entity of sufficient capability to instantiate this universe.


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

wavefreak wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:

 

I'm thrilled to remove god from the ranks of the unfalsifiable. Could you give us a definition which we could falsify?

 

An entity of sufficient capability to instantiate this universe.

What evidence do you have to show that this 'entity' exists?

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


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: An entity

wavefreak wrote:
An entity of sufficient capability to instantiate this universe.

 

How much capability is required to instantiate this universe?  Are there other universes that do not require such an entity to be instantiated?  How do you know our universe is not such a universe? 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


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

illeatyourdog wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
An entity of sufficient capability to instantiate this universe.

 

How much capability is required to instantiate this universe? Are there other universes that do not require such an entity to be instantiated? How do you know our universe is not such a universe?

Irrelevant..

All that was asked for was a definition that is falsifiable. Were you to show that this universe could never be instantiated by sentient action then such an entity would be falsified. Note that just because such an entity can be falsified, this does not imply anything about its existence.


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
Irrelevant..

All that was asked for was a definition that is falsifiable. Were you to show that this universe could never be instantiated by sentient action then such an entity would be falsified. Note that just because such an entity can be falsified, this does not imply anything about its existence.

 

I wasn't trying to disprove the hypothesis.  I was merely pointing out a few holes in it that could be filled up.  If you are defining this being by its capability to instantiate the universe, you need to explain how much capability is required to instantiate the universe or else you simply found a sciency sounding way of saying "Only God is powerful enough to create something from nothing" since that claim also begs the question "How much power is needed to create the universe?".  Furthermore, you need to be able to explain how much power or capability this being has as well as how you were able to determine that it had such capability/power.  

 

Also, I am not the one trying to explain how the universe came to be.  You are and this falsifiable definition is but one step in a possible explanation, therefore,  I do not have to, nor am I trying to, present a case that it is absolutly impossible for the universe to have been created by a sentient being.  I am merely questioning your hypothesis as to how a sentient being could.    

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I trying to justify a God, not a religion.

Based on evidence, is there a reason to do this?