Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deism in the Dock
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 16 of 270 (415319)
08-09-2007 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
08-09-2007 12:23 PM


As of 2007, no experiment has directly detected the existence of the Higgs boson, but there is indirect evidence for it.
Couldn't we say the same for God?
It seems that in science circles, more credence goes to some assumptions, than others.
thus, if God exists, God has an enormous effect on the world around us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 12:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 1:40 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2007 2:35 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 270 (415320)
08-09-2007 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz
08-09-2007 1:33 PM


Couldn't we say the same for God?
Actually no, we couldn't - there's no evidence of any kind for God, direct or indirect, and considerable evidence against.
And the contention of one elementary particle that has yet to be directly detected but can be inferred from other physical observations is a lot different than the contention of an omnipresent, omnipotent, benevolent, eternal entity called "God."
What's the problem you guys have where you can't distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary assertions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 1:33 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 1:47 PM crashfrog has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 270 (415321)
08-09-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
08-09-2007 1:40 PM


Actually no, we couldn't - there's no evidence of any kind for God, direct or indirect, and considerable evidence against.
1. No evidence for God.
2. Evidence against.
Ofcourse, what evidences God, and what evidences NOT God, is not stated, so what am I to make of that statement Shraffrog?
I know what evidences God! MASS!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 1:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 2:23 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 270 (415332)
08-09-2007 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
08-09-2007 1:47 PM


Ofcourse, what evidences God, and what evidences NOT God, is not stated
It wouldn't be on-topic in this thread, though in an earlier post, I gave evidence against the existence of God that has yet to be refuted.
But if you just want to pretend like every debate I've been a part of for the last several years simply didn't happen, be my guest. Very poor memories on the parts of theists, around here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 1:47 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 2:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 20 of 270 (415334)
08-09-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
08-09-2007 2:23 PM


mikey's memory banks
I can't see how it is possible to find evidence against God, because God is not falsifiable. And if MY memory serves me correctly, this is something that YOU said many many years ago - that God is not falsifiable.
I am not saying you are wrong in your claims, I am just convinced that evidence for or against God can't ever be known. People can only estimate what would or would not evidence him.
An atheist will say that suffering is evidence against a benevolent God. A theist will say that it isn't. How can anyone establish evidence for or against God, when because he isn't factual, infinite argument for or against him seems possible. Evidence becomes a matter of opinion because he is by definition, transcendant to science and logic.
If God can do anything, then it could be argued that he could make evidence against himself.
As Dan Carroll would ask; what is God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 2:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 2:37 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 270 (415335)
08-09-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz
08-09-2007 1:33 PM


Couldn't we say the same for God?
Well, they are doing experiments right now to try to detect signs of the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson is believed to exist because theories that explain things that we do see and detect predict that the Higgs boson should exist as well. These theories also give a precise description (or, at least, a limited range in its properties) so that people know what they are looking for and can agree if and when they find it.
If the Higgs boson is discovered, other people will repeat the experiments, and devise clever new ones, to confirm that the Higgs boson was observed.
If, after years of looking for the signs that the theories tell them to look for, scientists fail to see any sign of the Higgs boson, the theories will end up being modified and replaced, and it may even be that the new theories will no longer claim that there is a Higgs boson.
Could we say the same for God?

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 1:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Michael, posted 08-09-2007 9:18 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 270 (415336)
08-09-2007 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by mike the wiz
08-09-2007 2:35 PM


Re: mikey's memory banks
. And if MY memory serves me correctly, this is something that YOU said many many years ago - that God is not falsifiable.
Well, it kind of depends what you mean when you say "God", now doesn't it?
For the most part, people seem to define "God" in ways that do make God potentially falsifiable.
Did you go back to my post and read it? Or are you just so convinced that there can be no evidence against God that you're determined to ignore any such evidence put before you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 2:35 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 2:53 PM crashfrog has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 23 of 270 (415339)
08-09-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
08-09-2007 2:37 PM


Re: mikey's memory banks
Do you mean the particle that can't be observed? Is that by human eyes or transcendant supernatural ones?
Or are you just so convinced that there can be no evidence against God that you're determined to ignore any such evidence put before you?
Crash, you ae assuming you are correct, and it is actually evidence against God.
If science can detect such a particle, then God's eyes can, perhaps? Otherwise - you wouldn't know about such a particle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 2:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 4:50 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 270 (415351)
08-09-2007 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by mike the wiz
08-09-2007 2:53 PM


Re: mikey's memory banks
Do you mean the particle that can't be observed? Is that by human eyes or transcendant supernatural ones?
The kind of eye has no bearing on the issue. The particles behave differently when observed than when unobserved; since we can detect the difference in behavior, that proves that, at some point at least, the particles are unobserved - which disproves the existence of a God who is always observing everything, all at once.
Since we can trivially prove that not everything is always being observed - by anybody - that God simply doesn't exist. QED.
Otherwise - you wouldn't know about such a particle.
I'd invite you to examine how the experiments are done before you try to refute my use of them. Arguing from ignorance isn't going to get you very far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 2:53 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 5:06 PM crashfrog has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 25 of 270 (415355)
08-09-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
08-09-2007 4:50 PM


Re: mikey's memory banks
The particles behave differently when observed than when unobserved; since we can detect the difference in behavior, that proves that, at some point at least, the particles are unobserved - which disproves the existence of a God who is always observing everything, all at once.
It doesn't prove it. Logically, if the assumption is that God is always observing it, then you could not differentiate the default position with the observed position. Thus your calculation, if it was 0.2, would be 0.2 with or without God.
If X particle has always been observed by Z entity, then the reference is the same to you as if X particle had never been observed by Z entity.
So you MUST assume it is never being observed by God. You can't infer that our observation, by natural means, is the same as the observation, by supernatural means.
For all you know, there would be a change again, if God stopped observing. Kind of like a thief who steals a ten pound note from your piggy bank. If there is a change in the amount, after he takes the money, then unless I know the original amount, you can not know whether there was another thief.
Forgive me, but I have a terrible neck-ache, and must refrain from participation for a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 4:50 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2007 5:17 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 270 (415359)
08-09-2007 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mike the wiz
08-09-2007 5:06 PM


Re: mikey's memory banks
So you MUST assume it is never being observed by God. You can't infer that our observation, by natural means, is the same as the observation, by supernatural means.
There's nothing in the theory, model, or experimentation that distinguishes between observation by natural means and observation by supernatural means, whatever that means.
The behavior changes when the particle is observed - regardless of how the particle is observed.
For all you know, there would be a change again, if God stopped observing.
You're asserting that the particle itself can distinguish between when it's being observed by God and when it's being observed by God and people. If it can't distinguish between individual people, then there's no reason to believe that it distinguishes between people and God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2007 5:06 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by mike the wiz, posted 08-12-2007 11:22 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 27 of 270 (415360)
08-09-2007 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
08-09-2007 8:50 AM


exclusivity in religion
On a tangent:
Seconding PaulK, who questions NJ's assertion that religions 'have to' claim exclusivity. Paul did a concise, effective job, so I'll just add a little graffiti.
PaulK:
To a large extent Hinduism is a complex of religions that have grown together.
To a large extent any major world religion is a complex of religions that have grown together.
Religions need to claim some special knowledge, but they don't need to completely or even partially exclude all other religions.
Absolutely true.
Most people in my part of the world might be said to practice at least four 'religions' at once: Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and ancestor worship. If you ask their religion, though, most will just say 'Buddhist.' Few consider Confucianism a religion (though it does have temples where prayer is offered) or ancestor worship truly 'worship.' Taoism comes in a religious (Tao chou) and a non-religious (Tai chia) form.
Besides the mix-and-match, you find different combinations. It's still possible to be a Buddhist or a Taoist (hi!) without being much else. You also meet plenty of agnostics and atheists, many of whom visit temples and pray with their families anyway.
You often see more than one belief represented in a family. It is common for a predominantly Buddhist family to have some Christian and agnostic members and for predominantly Christian families to have some Buddhist and atheist members.
Buddhist temples here have shrines to Taoist deities and ancestors as well as boddhisattvas; Buddhist temples in Thailand often have shrines to Hindu deities as well.
All this goes to show that exclusivity is not necessarily a characteristic of religion generally. It is certainly not a case of 'have to.'
It is closer to the mark to say exclusivity is characteristic of Judaism and its historical offspring (Christianity, Islam).
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 08-09-2007 8:50 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Rob, posted 08-12-2007 1:40 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 28 of 270 (415365)
08-09-2007 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hyroglyphx
08-09-2007 8:55 AM


Re: Disproving negatives
NJ:
IOW, how can you prove that something doesn't exist, if it doesn't exist?
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
How conclusive it is depends on the thoroughness of the search.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : elaboration.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-09-2007 8:55 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 29 of 270 (415369)
08-09-2007 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Hyroglyphx
08-08-2007 11:02 PM


as usual ... lack of understanding is yours
My question to deists is this: If you believe in God.... Why? I ask why because I can't seem to understand a logical or faithful one to do so. Deists will say that God cannot be seen, heard, or felt by special revelation. So cross that avenue of knowing God out.
Your failure to understand is your problem, not Deists. It should be enough that there are many Deists in the world to show that your personal perceptions on what are valid reasons to believe, and your personal problem with understanding Deists, is purely your problem.
Personally I don't understand how anyone can keep posting false information after it has been shown to be false, and yet this doesn't stop you from doing so. I just put it down to an inability to learn.
I've posted to you before on this and you failed to learn from that experience too.
How then have they surmised that a God exists then?
Because it is a personal choice - just as your faith is, I just chose not to delude myself about it.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 11:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-09-2007 11:06 PM RAZD has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 270 (415371)
08-09-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
08-09-2007 8:50 AM


The exclusive nature of religions
quote:
Afterall, religions claim exclusivity, and indeed have to in order to remain coherent.
Buddhism is not really about Gods and can and does co-exist with other religions (Hinduism and Shinto to name two obvious examples).
Polytheistic religions can and do combine (syncretism). To a large extent Hinduism is a complex of religions that have grown together.
While I would agree that many of the eastern religions sort of borrowed from one another, the fact remains that if any of them teach a path of righteousness, or what have, while the other has a totally different view altogether, one or both are incorrect.
As you said, Buddhists do not believe in deities, per say. But Hindu's believe in multiple deities. Both cannot both be right. They may be accepting and tolerant of different view points, but that does not negate the fact of exclusivity.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 08-09-2007 8:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 08-09-2007 7:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 33 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-09-2007 7:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024