There is no God.

[benburch]

A statement of my beliefs as a rational person;

I really hate to have to be blunt about this, but there is no God.

When you die, you cease to exist.

Before you were born you did not exist in any form.

Science tells us that nothing we know now about the Universe requires a God, or even allows one to exist.

No entity created the Universe, and none oversees it now.

I know many people want to believe that there is a God or that there is an afterlife, but the nonexistence of God and the finality of death give me great peace of mind.

The concept that after I die I might be judged by some entity that believes that I owe it some sort of obedience for having allowed me to exist is a positive nightmare to me. I'd rather oppose such a God than worship it, if it did exist, but, happily, it does not.

Now, my question; Why does what I know to be true threaten you in your faith? To judge from the way some people here deal with atheists, you'd think we had just cooked their pet dog for dinner.

[txaslftist]

1. But there sure enough is Flamebait.

[RobertSeattle]

16. LOL

Best comeback of the day!

I Flamebait, therefore I exist.

[txaslftist]

22. If I post flamebait in a forest and no one replies,

did I really make an ass of myself?

[Igel]

236. The answer is 'of course', so aren't you glad I replied? n/t

[dhinojosa]

2. Prove it....

Actually I would ask the religious the same thing.
I'm agnostic, therefore, all I am above all of you.

:)

[Spinzonner]

4. But we're ambivalent about whether you really exist

[dhinojosa]

13. Perhaps if I come to your house with some banana nut bread?

Would that change your mind? :toast:

[Spinzonner]

18. That would clearly demonstrate the falacy of your existance

Everyone knows that bananas don't have nuts

And even if they did, who would want them baked into bread.

[benburch]

7. Well, I simply obey Occam's Razor

William of Occam said not to make things more difficult than the evidence demands.

Yes, my belief that there is no God is subject to change when new data appears. So in that sense I am an agnostic, too.

[dhinojosa]

19. I cut myself using Occam's Razor.....

even though it was so simple to use.

But to your point, if you were truly using William of Ockham's Razor of parsimony then you would know that an absolute lack of evidence about God means that no one has any evidence of God.

On an ironic point, William of Ockham was a English friar. I wonder if he knew we'd argue the existence of God using his theory.

[Selwynn]

52. Saying you have not seen sufficient evidence of God saying

emphatically God does not exist, a statement that is purely a belief statement, unsupported by any evidence.

[benburch]

69. No more than saying the Tooh Fairy does not exist.

Nonexistence is a very fragile assertion that can be broken by one fact.

I assert to you now there is NO Tooth Fairy.

[Selwynn]

97. the non-existence of a tooth-fary is not a "fact"

It is an arguably reasonable belief. There is in fact no proof that no tooth fary exists. However the lack of any compelling evidence is an argument for claiming disbelief in her existence is reasonable.

That is also an argument for disbelief in the existence of god. The key centers on "compelling evidence. Whether or not belief in the non-existence of God is reasonable or not is a much debated issue, which contrary to your narrow minded dogma, is responsibly argued by both sides.

[lazarus]

101. Heh

I could put together a fairly cogent case that the belief in Santa Claus is actually more reasonable than the belief in god.

[Selwynn]

102. I'm sure you could.

[Igel]

237. Strictly speaking, I think good William would look at this debate

and reply that neither requires additional entities. (The versions of the razor that use 'simple' or 'difficult' are mere interpretations and attempts to extend William's maxim to include situations in which entity-counting is difficult. Simply put, he said entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. If one thief or variable handles the data, don't posit two. The ultimate conspiracy killer.)

If you believe in God, the universe is simply a derivative of him; much as you need to posit independent variables in real analysis, reducing any dependent variables to just those that are independent, so you have to reduce the entities the razor would cover to independent entitites.

We may posit an independent God, or an independent universe. In either case, we have only one entity. The two propositions balance perfectly.

[eallen]

29. Here's my favorite disproof of one sort of god.

This is a disproof of any god who has both of the following qualities: (1) he is the creator of everything else that exists, and (2) he knows this. Importantly, this includes most versions of god held by Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Begin, by considering a god with the power to create universes and other creative beings. One of the things such a god might do is create a variety of demi-gods, each of whom creates their own universe, and who are unaware of their brethren demi-gods and their parent god. Note that these demi-gods might exist "outside of time," or on a different temporal dimension that the parent god also creates, so each has always been, from its own perspective. Now, from their own perspective, the situation of each of these demi-god's is no different from the parent god's. So the parent god also has no way of knowing that it was not created by some ur-god.

Another way of looking at this is that any god who claims to have created everything else that exists either is lying or mistaken, because even a god cannot know that there isn't another god in its universe next door, inaccessible to the first god who is claiming this.

You're right, of course, that there might be gods of some sort or another. The various disproofs of god always focus on a god with certain qualities. It's just the stupidity of the Abrahamic religions that they, for the most part, believe in a god of the sort that has been disproved.

[benburch]

44. Your disproof requires a multiverse.

And also assumes that any God is honest.

[eallen]

48. It requires only the possibility of a multiverse.

It demonstrates what even a god cannot know, and disproves the existence of any god that has such knowledge. It does not assume that a god is honest. It demonstrates that a god who makes certain claims is either mistaken in its thinking or dishonest. There being little information about the psychology of gods, Homer excepted, I'm at a loss as how to distinguish between the two cases.

[trotsky]

108. That's an interesting line of reasoning.

Sort of an infinite regression problem, which fundamentally arises from the definition of an archetypal creator god. Did you come up with that yourself? I have never seen it before.

[eallen]

113. Yes, I came up with it myself. But I doubt I was first to do so.

This area has been plowed so many times that it is very unlikely that no one before has ever expressed this idea. However, it doesn't seem much discussed, unlike the problem of evil.

[Stunster]

114. That's garbage

First you say:

(1) he is the creator of everything else that exists, and (2) he knows this.

Then you say:

Now, from their own perspective, the situation of each of these demi-god's is no different from the parent god's.

You don't see how this is garbage?

:eyes:

[eallen]

121. You're not reading correctly.

Read my post again. "This is a disproof of any god who has both of the following qualities: (1) he is the creator of everything else that exists, and (2) he knows this." That is the conclusion, stated up front, not the beginning of the argument itself.

The next paragraph: "Begin, by considering a god with the power to create universes and other creative beings." This is the beginning of the argument. Note that there is no assumption here that this god himself is uncreated, or that he knows this. In fact, what is shown next is that he cannot know this.

It's quite common in philosophy and logic, almost de rigueur, to state the conclusion before beginning the proof of it. I'm sorry that that confused you.

[Stunster]

126. It's still garbage

as an argument, that is.

Reading it the way you want me to, the logical error now is blatant petitio principii.

You write: because even a god cannot know that there isn't another god in its universe next door, inaccessible to the first god who is claiming this.

This very obviously begs the question against the classical theist!

Classical theism defines God in part by attributing to him the property of being necessarily and genuinely omniscient. So when you say 'even a god cannot know....' you're simply asserting something which the classical theist wouldn't for a minute accept. Classical theism defines God as necessarily existing and necessarily infinite and necessarily conscious. I have expressed this elsewhere as being the idea that God is unlimited self-communicating information (from which by further analysis it would follow, I believe, that God is necessarily conscious and omniscient).

A key idea here is that expressed by prominent philosopher of mind David Chalmers when he says that 'matter is information from the outside and consciousness is information from the inside'.

Now think about what unlimited, or infinite, information must imply.

But I don't have to try to explain how God is omniscient to show why your argument must fail. Upon the hypothesis of theism, God is necessarily omniscient, and you've merely constructed an argument upon the hypothesis that God isn't necessarily omniscient. Big deal.

To make your argument work, you'd have to show why a necessarily omniscient being isn't logically possible. You don't show that merely by asserting that 'even a god cannot know...' That's what you have to prove!

No, chum, an omniscient being can know.....ex hypothesi.
Indeed, an omniscient being would know that that there are no other gods and that he is not himself a creature.

You have to change your argument from assuming that there might be something a god doesn't know (which merely begs the question against the possibility of omniscience), to showing why an infinite consciousness still wouldn't be omniscient, or showing why an infinite mind is impossible.

You've provided no such argument. You've simply begged the question.

[eallen]

131. First, note that infinite is not the same as total.

If you think it is, consider that every infinite set has a power set that is larger in cardinality.

Second, objections against arguments that take the form "..because x is defined not to be that way" typically miss the point. Theists classically try to define their god so as to make him immune to argument.

The argument I press can be viewed as showing a conflict between omnipotence and omniscience. A god that is omnipotent, your classic god, can -- by definition -- create a second god, who is capable of creating its own universe, who is eternal with respect to all temporal dimensions in that universe, and omnipotent and omniscient except with respect to its parent god, who does not reveal himself. Indeed, the first god could even make the second god so that it believes that it is the only god, and the necessary ground of all being. Omnipotence, remember? The interesting thing is that that belief will not conflict with everything else the second god knows, because anything outside itself and its creation is inaccessible to it. That is the way the first god created the second god. The second god could create a third god, in the same fashion. And the second god cannot truly know such a thing, because in his case, it is false.

Now, the observation is that in every regard, the first god and the second god are isomorphic. Both believe that they are the ultimate god, the one who truly is omniscient and omnipotent. Both know that that is not the case with regard to their children gods, the first with regard to the second, the second with regard to the third. So: is there any way that the first god can really know that he is the ultimate god? No, because if there were, the second god could also.

[eallen]

133. Doh! Last sentence of paragraph 3 belongs at end of paragraph 4.

[Stunster]

136. This is now a 'reductio ad absurdum' of your own argument

First you write:

Now, the observation is that in every regard, the first god and the second god are isomorphic.


Then you write:

Both know that that is not the case with regard to their children gods, the first with regard to the second, the second with regard to the third. So: is there any way that the first god can really know that he is the ultimate god? No, because if there were, the second god could also.

Well, now it turns out that it is not the case that in every regard the first and the second gods are isomorphic!

The first god has deceived the second god, and knows this. Which means there's some fact that the first god knows (that it has deceived the second god) which the second god does not know.

Also, the first god would be uncreated, but the second god wouldn't be. That is another factual difference between them, and a genuinely omniscient being would know all factual differences, and a non-omniscient being wouldn't. So again, no true isomorphism.

You're taking one unidirectional relational property and saying that's isomorphic. But that's just an ad hoc restriction on your part, and has got nothing to do with the concept of God or of omniscience as these terms are used by theists.

But really the problem is when you write, "No, because if there were, the second god could also." The theist holds that by necessity there can only be one God (in Aquinas' terms, God's essence = God's existence), and you take this to be incoherent with the further theistic claim that God is omnipotent. But actually, it's not.

Classical theism defines omnipotence in terms of having the power to do whatever it is logically possible to do. And if theism is true, then there is no logically possible world in which there are two Gods. So God not being able to actualize such a world is no more a limitation on divine omnipotence than God not being able to actualize a world in which 43% of circles are squares or in which all bachelors are married. (Only Descartes is prominent among theists who have included the ability to do the logically impossible in their concept of omnipotence, and most theists think he was simply mistaken about that.)

In other words, once one understands the concept of God in traditional theism, one sees that if that concept is instantiated at all, then it is of necessity uniquely instantiated.

What you're trying to do is like taking the concept of the only person who ever lives past the age of 128, and saying suppose that concept was instantiated twice. If it's instantiated at all, it's only instantiated once.

Complaining about theism being so carefully defined that it's hard to refute is a weak argument, since almost any philosophical view, or argument, can be refuted if it's carelessly defined.

[eallen]

139. Now, you're just not following the logic.

Isomorphic doesn't mean identical. Your objections miss that fact. For example, "The first god has deceived the second god, and knows this. Which means there's some fact that the first god knows (that it has deceived the second god) which the second god does not know." But the second god has done exactly the same to the third god. The isomorphism requires god1:god2::god2:god3. It doesn't require that god1 and god2 are identical or stand in the same relationship to each other. The point is that there is no possible way that god1 can know there isn't a god0, where god0:god1::god1:god2.

"Also, the first god would be uncreated, but the second god wouldn't be." Nay. The argument makes no assumption about whether god1 is created or not.

"What you're trying to do is like taking the concept of the only person who ever lives past the age of 128, and saying suppose that concept was instantiated twice. If it's instantiated at all, it's only instantiated once." There's nothing privileged about the classical theist's definitions, and they cannot avoid these problems by defining them away. What theistic arguments often boil down to is that there cannot be more than one person who lived over the age of 128 because they have defined the concept of the unique person who has done so. In proving things about gods, we're perfectly free to consider more general notions, for example, "just like the theist's God, without any uniqueness property required." That describes all the gods in my argument, and includes your classical theist's god. What the argument shows is that it is impossible for any god to know that it is the classical theist's god, rather than a created god. Hence, the classical theist's god is impossible, since by definition, it should have such knowledge.

[Stunster]

145. Your objections are question-begging

They rely on the possibility of the concept of God being multiply instantiated. But it is part of the meaning of the concept of God in classical theism that it can't be multiply instantiated.

You're also misusing the concept of isomorphism. The relationship of isomorphism is not instantiated if God1 stands in a different relationship to God2 than God2 stands in to God3. Let's suppose that there are no other Gods. God1 stands in the relation of 'being the uncreated creator of' to God2. God2 does *not* stand in that relation to God3. In other words, without specifying how many Gods there are, you can't tell if the relationship is isomorphic or not. But if the number of Gods is finite, then the relationship of God1 to God2 is not isomorphic to the relationship of Godn to Godn+1.

What if the number of Gods is infinite? Well, if there is a first member of the series, that member stands in the 'uncreated creator of' relation. This will not produce the isomorphism you require. But if none of the Gods stands in that relation, well, to me this just means that you're misusing the term 'God', since if none of the Gods stands in the relation of being the uncreated creator of, there's no reason to use the term 'God' at all. Theists mean by the term 'God, soemthing uncreated. Now you're simply positing nothing that is uncreated.

But that ain't no argument that there's nothing uncreated. So we're back to begging the question.

[eallen]

149. The classic definitions are in no way privileged.

"They rely on the possibility of the concept of God being multiply instantiated."

Again, that does not invalidate a proof that makes use of a more general notion. Anyone is perfectly free to use a notion that is weaker, that is, more general, than your "classical god." Having proved something about the more general notion, it applies also to the stricter notion. Theists are fond of trying to define their god to be immune to such things. But as I stated previously, that is rhetorical prestidigitation that doesn't work.

"You're also misusing the concept of isomorphism. The relationship of isomorphism is not instantiated if God1 stands in a different relationship to God2 than God2 stands in to God3. Let's suppose that there are no other Gods. God1 stands in the relation of 'being the uncreated creator of' to God2. God2 does *not* stand in that relation to God3. In other words, without specifying how many Gods there are, you can't tell if the relationship is isomorphic or not."

Well, it depends on how we define isomorphism over realms of being. :)

Whether or not god1 is uncreated has to do with his relationship to a god0, if there is such, rather than to god2. The point is that because god1, having unlimited creative power, can create god2 so that god2 appears to be the uncreated creator, as far as god2 can determine, god1's uncreatedness is in the same boat. Given the possibility of omnipotence, there is no way that anyone, god or not, can know for certain that his own existence doesn't depend on a creator "one step back."

[Stunster]

156. Nor is your way of defining 'isomorphic'

If you're going to accuse theists of smuggling their conclusions into their definitions, it behoves you not to do the same thing yourself.

You're defining the isomorphic relation in terms of the gods' epistemic capabilities. But why should facts about their ontological status not be part of what is isomorphically related? In particular, why should the relation of being the uncreated creator of... not also enter the account, if it is in fact the case that any god in your series is an uncreated one? It is not a good enough reason to exclude this from the isomorphic analysis merely because it's not in itself an epistemic notion.

Your argument actually rests on bad epistemology. In particular, it rests on the fallacy that for X to know that p, X must know that he knows that p, and know that he knows that he knows that p.... ad infinitum. Your argument, if it worked, would in fact prove that knowledge anywhere, anytime, is impossible. Descartes deals with this idea in his famous 'evil demon' example.

More generally, epistemologists have suggested that for X to know that p, it must merely be the case that p, that X believe that p, and that X be justified in believing that p, and some fourth condition, over which there continues to be a great deal of dispute. Whatever the correct account of the fourth condition, epistemologists generally accept that there is knowledge, and that it does not involve any infinite regress. In which case it might be the case that god1 meets the four conditions.

By your argument, one could prove that we don't know that we didn't pop into existence five minutes ago. We might have been created by a being five minutes ago with all our thoughts and memories, etc. And that being might himself have been created five minutes before that. And so on, ad infinitum. But if that's what your argument proves, then we should take your argument as being reduced to an absurdity. No knowledge, or valid rational thinking about the world would be justified or even possible.

So, if you accept total epistemological skepticism (even to the point of solipsism), then perhaps your argument works. But of course, it would be crazy to accept the former.

You might want to get a hold of Hilary Putnam's famous article, "Brains in a Vat".

[eallen]

162. Actually, that's a standard assumption of epistemic logic.

"Your argument actually rests on bad epistemology. In particular, it rests on the fallacy that for X to know that p, X must know that he knows that p."

Actually, that's the principle of positive introspection. It is one of the traditional axioms of epistemic logic. See a lot of stuff by Hintakka. Or here's an online reference:

http://staff.science.uva.nl/~johan/169.2004.5.pdf

Now yeah, a variety of philosophers have criticized positive introspection for being too strong, often on the grounds that human introspection is not all that perfect. I'm not sure that criticism carries much weight with regard to what gods know. :) But it's not the kind of thing you can blithely dismiss as a fallacy. And it doesn't cause infinite regress. In fact, one of the famous problems in distributed systems is when a group can achieve common knowledge, which is where everyone knows something, and everyone knows that everyone knows... ad infinitum. Halpern is the classic reference here. If you can't find this by Googling on Halpern, add the phrase "dirty foreheads."

"By your argument, one could prove that we don't know that we didn't pop into existence five minutes ago."

Actually, that is not an implication of my argument, but it is a straightforward implication of there being a god with omnipotent creative abilities. By virtue of his omnipotence, he could indeed have created the world five minutes ago (by our time, not necessarily by his), and creating it in such a way that it appears to be much older, including all of our memories. Theists typically underestimate the effect of an omnipotent being on epistemology.

[Stunster]

171. Your argument

It originally stated this:

Another way of looking at this is that any god who claims to have created everything else that exists either is lying or mistaken

Let's say there is just one god, and this god created everything else. Let's say that this god claims to be the only god, and the creator of everything else. How would that be a lie, or a mistake? It's true, upon the hypothesis stated.

So your argument must be to the conclusion that even if it is true, and hence the god is not lying or mistaken, he couldn't know this.

Ok. Let's say I think I made a painting. I hang it on a wall, and tell my friends, "Look at the painting I made". Suppose one of my friends objected, saying, "How do you know that you didn't pop into existence a minute ago, with the thought that you had made that painting already in your head. You might have been deceived by an evil demon."

How does one answer him? Does one concede that one does not know? Or does one provide an argument that an infinite regress of deceptive creation is incoherent in some way?

I say the latter. An infinite regress of deception is incoherent. The concept of deception presupposes that a contrast with knowledge is possible. But if knowledge is possible, then there can be no such thing as an infinite regress of deception.

But it is this incoherent notion of infinite deceptive regress that you're relying on in your argument to the conclusion that a god couldn't know that he wasn't lying or mistaken.

[eallen]

174. You're right, that should have been: "who claims to know..".

You're right. That sentence should have read: "Another way of looking at this is that any god who claims to to know he created everything else that exists either is lying or mistaken." The problem, of course, is that he has no way of knowing that he himself wasn't created by a more primordial god. The possibility of creative omnipotence makes that piece of knowledge impossible.

"Let's say I think I made a painting. I hang it on a wall, and tell my friends, "Look at the painting I made". Suppose one of my friends objected, saying, "How do you know that you didn't pop into existence a minute ago, with the thought that you had made that painting already in your head. You might have been deceived by an evil demon." How does one answer him?

I think you're missing the fact that this has nothing to do with being created five minutes ago, or even at any moment in your past. All the gods in my example are eternal, with regard to all temporal dimensions of which they know or that they themselves have created. Don't make the mistake of thinking a god has to be in the same temporal dimension as what he creates! The more analogous counterexample would be a hypothetical Adam, the first man, who creates a painting, and says "Look, I am the first person to create anything of artifice." Eve then responds, "How do you know we aren't artifice, also created?" I trust that's a more palatable question to you. :)

But you're right, that if there are gods with omnipotent creative ability, they indeed could have created the world five minutes ago. As I previously stated: that's an inevitable consequence of creative omnipotence. For our world, it doesn't even require omnipotence, but simply adequate creative potential. I'm not sure why you would consider such a god an "evil demon." Why would that be any more evil than having created the world 10,000 years past? Or 10 billion? More generally, what do you consider the ethical obligations of a creative god to its creation? This is an interesting question, because in the extrapolatable future, we might have the potential to create worlds with intelligent life. The interesting references in this regard are Tipler's Omega Point, and Nick Bostrom's simulation argument:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

[Stunster]

182. I still think

your argument depends crucially on an overly stringent conception of knowledge, and that it yields global skepticism. Nor do I see why, if it doesn't yield such skepticism with respect to the capacity of human minds to know anything, it should yield skepticism specifically in the case of God's capacity for knowledge. Seems to me pretty straightforward that if you know that you did not pop into existence five minutes ago, then God would know that God didn't pop into existence previously either. I don't think you can have it both ways. I don't think you can deny that your argument generates global epistemological skepticism for humans, but generates it for gods. And I take it that if it does generate global skepticism for humans, that's just a 'reductio ad absurdum' of your argument, not a reason for accepting your argument.

It also begs the question in several ways.

It begs the question against there being an infinite consciousness---which is indeed what theists claim God to be.

It begs the question against there being necessarily only one God---which is indeed what theists claim.

And it begs the question in favor of the relevant relation truly being isomorphic---the category of relation is broader than epistemic relation, and since an uncreated creator's relation to a creature is different from a created creator's relation to another creature, we have no need to say that there's any true isomorphism.

Something that is an uncreated creator which is necessarily aware of all facts---i.e. a theistic God---would therefore be aware of this fact. To get round this you're relying on a conception of god that a theist does not share, namely you're relying on the idea of God having a finite nature--being a finite mind, being an object among other objects, an entity among other entities. But classical theists deny that God is any such thing. God is esse ipse subsistens, to use Aquinas' term.

By 'God' classical theism means a reality that is essentially immaterial, spiritual, eternal and infinite, and exists of internal metaphysical necessity and is not dependent on anything else for its existence. Such a reality cannot be distinguished from another reality that is essentially the same. There is no material or spatiotemporal distinction. Nor is there a distinction by 'form' or 'nature', nor by having a beginning, nor by having and end. If there was something it didn't know, it would not be an infinite spirit.

Moreover, classical theists don't hold that God could be a deceiver. God is essentially good, essentially moral. Is it logically possible for an essentially good, essentially moral being to act immorally? No. Hence God not being able to actualize such a state of affairs is no more an objection to omnipotence than any other logical impossibility not being actualizable by God. Theists just don't define omnipotence to include being able to actualize logical impossibilities.

[eallen]

187. You are misunderstanding

"It begs the question against there being an infinite consciousness." Not at all. All the gods in my proof are infinite.

"It begs the question against there being necessarily only one God." Again, no. Proofs about a more specific notion often work by looking to a more general notion.

"Seems to me pretty straightforward that if you know that you did not pop into existence five minutes ago, then God would know that God didn't pop into existence previously either." Again, the proof doesn't depend on anything popping into existence, only on the possibility that it is created rather than ground. And again, there is no way we can know we weren't created five minutes ago if there is a god with creative omnipotence. That's not a reductio, but simply an inevitable consequence of powerful gods. BTW, theists inthe 19th century argued that their god created the earth 6,000 years ago with the appearance of much greater age, because the earth would be less perfect if it weren't created with an apparent past. Google on "omphalos." See how much becomes possible if there is a god? And the extent to which his followers are willing to define away any obstacle to their theology?

"Moreover, classical theists don't hold that God could be a deceiver." Then he better start telling the truth about what even a god can and cannot know. The problem is that classical theists try to define away all problems with their god, while ignoring the logical conflicts this causes. Again, any proof that uses a more general notion that the classical theist's god applies to it also. They cannot escape the logical consequences by trying to immunize their god by definition.

[Stunster]

189. You're going round in circles now

and ignoring the argument I gave in my last reply about why there can't be more than one classically conceived God. You're also ignoring, or not understanding, what is implied in the notion of infinite consciousness. It implies that there is nothing in reality of which it is not consciously aware. And you're ignoring the fact that your argument implies global skepticism---the 5 minute ago popping is not meant to be dependent on the notion of temporality, but on the notion of being deceived in a radical way as part of an infinite series of radical deceptions. The notion is incoherent, since deception implies a contrast with knowledge, a contrast which your argument and definition of knowledge make impossible to generate.

God for theists is the ground of reason and value. Why the ground of reason and value would ever want to generate deception and systematically false beliefs among his creatures is something we needn't consider, because it's a self-contradictory notion, when thought about carefully enough, which you're just not bothering to do.

In sum, your argument has no purchase against classical theism, because it doesn't contain any reference to the God of classical theism. Hence, as a theist, I'm completely unmoved by it.

[eallen]

191. In that case, you're just rejecting reason.

If someone proves something about spheres, you cannot legitimately object, "But I'm talking about only red spheres. You're proof doesn't restrict itself to spheres that are red." And if the proof is that a sphere's surface varies with the square of its radius, and you're belief is in red spheres whose surface varies with the cube of their radius, it's simply silly to object, "no, no, you're talking about something completely different."

The problem is that you're not going to allow any logical objection to the theist's classical god, because in your view, that is "the ground of reason and value." Which means you have rejected reason in any more prosaic sense. Which usually is where a discussion of faith vs. reason ends.

Bye.

[Stunster]

195. I'm not talking about accidental properties

Omniscience isn't an accidental property of God. Your remarks about red spheres aren't relevant.

[eallen]

196. Makes no difference whether the property is accidental or necessary.

If something is true of everything that has properties x, y, and z, it remains true of those things that also have x as a necessary property. In this case, it's showing some of the properties that the theists define as being necessary attributes of their god aren't even possible attributes. That shows a problem with their definition/assumption, not with the argument.

[Stunster]

200. You're not getting anywhere

The circumference of a sphere is a circle. That's very different from whether or not a sphere is red. What your argument amounts to is like saying, "But suppose the circumference of a particular sphere wasn't a circle, but only seemed to be circular..."

Theism says that omniscience is to God as the circularity of its circumference is to a sphere. God = infinite spirit. Infinite spirit = unlimited intellect. You're saying nothing could know that it was an unlimited intellect. Well, an unlimited intellect would know that it's an unlimited intellect. You're saying an unlimited intellect might be mistaken in thinking it was an unlimited intellect. But if it really was an unlimited intellect, then there'd be nothing to prevent it from knowing the truth about itself.

God is unlimited self-communicating information. If something really was unlimited self-communicating information, then it would have that information about itself, by its own nature. To say that it might be mistaken is simply to say that it might be limited---that there is information which it does not have access to. But that is to suppose the following incoherent concept: an unlimited act of self-communicating information might be limited in the information that it communicates to itself.

Now if something is information at all, it must be accessible. Intrinsically inaccessible information just isn't information. I.e., it doesn't even get to be, or count as, information. Now suppose there is only one God, as classically conceived. Then this information must be accessible to some mind. The obvious mind it would be accessible to is God's.

In short, there is a transcendental argument to the effect that if anything is the case, it must be knowable that it is the case. A fact or state of affairs that could never be known even in principle is just like no such fact or state of affairs obtaining at all. So, if theism is true, God would know it's true.

[Az]

201. Is the argument being made that God does not make mistakes?

He seems to admit to having made mistakes in the bible. Here are some examples of God reconsidering his actions:

Gen.6:6 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
Ex.32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Dt.32:36 "For the Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants.
1 Sam.15:11 "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king."
1 Sam.15:35 "The Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel."
2 Sam.24:16 "The Lord repented of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, it is enough: stay now thine hand."
1 Chr.21:15 "The Lord beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand."
Jer.15:6 "I am weary of repenting."
Jer.18:8 "I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."
Jer.26:3 "That I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them."
Jer.26:13 "The Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you."
Jer.26:19 "The Lord repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them."
Jer.42:10 "For I repent me of the evil that I have done unto you."
Am.7:3,6 "The Lord repented for this."
Jon.3:10 "God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them."

God certainly seems to be capable of making errors. Perhaps the claim that god is omniscient is misplaced.

[Stunster]

202. Theism could be true

and the Bible could be false.

Or, maybe when the Bible describes God as a 'rock', one should be careful of thinking that this means the Biblical authors thought that God was a material object. And maybe when the Bible describes God as 'repenting', one should be careful of thinking that this means that God is sorry for taking a course of action he later came to believe was a mistake.

Maybe the Bible just uses anthropomorphic terms to describe the fact that God does not desire that some situation (such as the Israelites going through a tough time) endure permanently.

Anthropomorphisms are commonly found in a lot of literary writing---some of which writing expresses profound truths about human experiences, including how we experience our relation to the transcendent.

[Az]

205. Many things could be true

The trick is to devise a means to determine which things are true. Science is a practicle method but it is not the only one that humans have sought to use. But the question is are the other methods accurate. Are they self correcting?

If theism is true then surely there must be some trace, some aspect that we can examine to come to a reasonable conclusion without relying on twists and turns. If theism is true then there is no reason that science could not lead us to an understanding of it. Conversely if theism is not true then science can still lead us to an understanding of the nature of the universe. Its just a method. Not the only method. But perhaps the most practicle method.

[Stunster]

192. It's hard to get a handle on what you're saying

about knowledge in general.

A couple of questions:

Do humans ever know anything?

If the answer is yes, is some of it uninferred?

If some of it is uninferred, then why can't God know as an uninferred bit of knowledge that he's the only God there is or ever could be?

If knowledge proceeds only holistically because epistemic foundationalism is impossible, then why can't God have holistic knowledge that he's the only God there is or ever could be?

If there is no such thing as knowledge (because it's impossible that ever could be such a thing), and rational beings can at most only have reasonable, warranted beliefs, why would this be all that problematic from a theist's point of view? Couldn't the theist say, "Well, knowledge is impossible, so God doesn't know anything. But still, God has the most reasonable, most warranted beliefs about things." God would then not be omniscient, but omnirational. But if that's the best anthing with a rational mind could be, why would that be a disaster from a theistic point of view?

[eallen]

193. As always, it depends on what assumptions you make.

"Why can't God know as an uninferred bit of knowledge that he's the only God there is or ever could be?" Because, assuming creative omnipotence -- that this god is capable of creating another god, he then ought to realize it's possible he also was created by a more primordial god. In fact, it doesn't even matter if the god you assume possesses creative omnipotence, as long as creative omnipotence is a possibility. The point is, it simply isn't rational for anyone, god or not, to claim that they are the ultimate ground of being. There's always the possibility of a more primordial god that is responsible for their existence.

"God would then not be omniscient, but omnirational. But if that's the best anthing with a rational mind could be, why would that be a disaster from a theistic point of view?" The real problem the classical theist has with an omni-rational mind, or even a somewhat rational mind, is that it wouldn't believe in the classical theist's god. As an atheist, I have no problem imagining that our world was created by a god. Assuming this god is rational, and it doesn't have any evidence of a more primordial god, it would not believe in any more primordial god, while at the same time realizing it cannot prove with certainty that it is the ground of all being. In short, it would be an atheist, much as are the rational beings in its created world. If our world is the creation of a god, I suspect it gets a chuckle at the kinds of things most theists believe about it. :)

[Igel]

238. Your proof doesn't do what you claim it does.

In the first instance, it doesn't rise to the challenge of showing such a god is indeed the case in the present universe. It claims that it is merely a possibility, not a necessity.

Moreover, in disproving the omnipotent variety of god, you posit one, even if allowing for the omnipotent creator claimed by some faiths for this universe isn't such a one.

Such a god cannot be said to be either lying or mistaken--you're placing a false choice before us, and leaving out a third option that may equally be true. Such a god may also be telling the truth.

[atreides1]

3. I'm Not Threatened

You have your belief, and I respect that, I have my belief and can only hope that you give me the same respect.

We may not agree, but we can learn from one another.

[ElectroPrincess]

5. "There is no God?" I agree only if

this tread survives and flourishes. LOL <I'm teasing here>

No, my point is that ONE (any individual) either invests faith to Believe or NOT Believe in a higher power. End of story.

Like hand guns, hand grenades or pregnancy testing, there's just no half-way with regard to such an investment.

O8)

[blonndee]

10. Sorry, but there is a halfway, and I'm there.

It's more than a matter of "faith" or "choosing" to believe something. My wish is for there to be a good god. My reason says there's no such thing. Halfway. Unresolvable for me, unless I "choose" to believe something, which really isn't belief, IMO. ;)

[ElectroPrincess]

34. Then one's beliefs are like a game of "horseshoes" for you?

That's cool, however, I'd make the unilateral decision that you do NOT believe. Yes, IMHO it's pure faith and the decision to let go and believe in a deity that is all encompassing ... like the big score.

[blonndee]

58. No, on the contrary, it's not a GAME and being "close" is not enough.

That's what I mean when I say I'm "halfway"--I'm between, stuck between what I wish to be true and what my reasoning says to be true. Or an alternative way of expressing it would be the old cliche: my heart believes but my head doesn't.

So I'm not willing to commit to either because I don't fully believe in either. Making the "decision" to believe would be like "deciding" to believe in unicorns. No offense to what you believe. For me, it wouldn't be completely honest and wouldn't feel true to my self to completely disregard either my heart OR my head (I just hate having to accept that false binary).

The way I deal with this is by continually searching and learning. I think by not "deciding," I've allowed myself to be more open to truth(s) I might not discover had my mind already been made up. Again, it's not a game. I've struggled with this for quite some time. I used to be a die-hard Christian (not a fundamentalist) and found a lot of joy and comfort in that. It's been an extremely frustrating, lonely, and scary experience.

[keithjx]

6. "What I know to be true"

is still subjective and not the end-all, be-all of the discussion. And it doesn't threaten me (and I'd prefer it if my dog wasn't bbqed).

You can believe what you like and I'll believe what I like. I'd enjoy the discussions we could have about the issue, but I'm not trying to convert you or expecting you to convert me.

So what's the problem again?
KJ

[Spinzonner]

8. So, you're from the Canine-Cuisine Atheist sect ...

[benburch]

14. Actually, I prefer eating herbivores.

But the occasional pussy is fine! :evilgrin:

[LiberalFighter]

9. It shouldn't threaten anyone...

because your belief and others shouldn't make a difference in their belief. All that should matter is that their belief is strong enough to sustain themselves.

Personally, I don't believe in a god either because it doesn't make sense. It is my belief that the worship of a god or gods was the result of men wanting to control others.

[progressiveBadger]

12. Ever read ishmael? n/t

[Spinzonner]

17. More than likely is was result of men wanting

to see that some sort of order controlled their lives.

It was the science of their times when scientific models and mathematical tools that currently used to abstract order from the sometimes apparent chaos of existence weren't available.

So they used human models and other forms of anthropomorphism to envision the things that controlled the world.

[LiberalFighter]

77. And give them hope

[Taverner]

11. I'm not offended

I disagree with you, but nowhere in my beleifs does it say that you have to agree with me, or that you're going to hell or any other punishment.

[PollyH]

15. God?

I agree "benburch" and I, too, have great peace of mind. You are not alone in your thinking. I also believe that spirtuality should be a private matter --- never did understand all the fundamentalist chatter about their religion. With all the noise and bellyaching they do wonder what are they running from? Each other, maybe?

[Taverner]

20. As a beleiver in God, I've never understood why one MUST beleive

I mean - say you are a programmer - must your script acknowledge your existence?

[Xipe Totec]

21. As a true believer in science

You won't mind providing supporting documentation. Right?

So could you point to the source backing up the statement:

"Science tells us that nothing we know now about the Universe requires a God, or even allows one to exist."

Just curious.

PS - I don't feel threatened by atheists, or by believers. But I do object proselytizing efforts from both camps.

[benburch]

33. I could.

But first you need to take a graduate level degree in physics so that it might make sense.

Let me know when you have.

[papau]

38. Post away - I'll translate if necessary - but I do look forward to your

discussion of the start - the creation....

:-)

[benburch]

59. Well, you can hardly translate this as it assumes preparation.

After you have learned everything you can possibly learn at college about physics, cosmology, and chemistry, I ask you to show me which equations that explain same have a term in them that could possibly be the action of God. And you will be able to point to none. At least, I can point to none, and I've worked in and around high energy and nuclear physics and astronomy since I was a young man. (Many years ago...) If you could point me to one, I would be happy to hear of it, and if your argument held up, you would have converted me to a theist.

Also, we cannot say that there even was a moment of creation. It is entirely possible that what is simply is. Time may have a horizon past which we cannot in principle seem and time could be said to start then. To ask what was "before" might not even make any sense.

Now, as you brought the term up, what evidence have you of a Creation event? The Big Bang was not a Creation, merely a phase the Universe existed in. Can you say categorically that there was an event that created it? I don't think you can.

[papau]

88. what is simply is is not an answer -or is it these days in nuclear phy :-)

we agree the math of the big bang does not describe creation.

And I think creation is a real question - while what is simply is is not an answer that was permitted on any exam I ever took.

As an aside, "Many years ago..." implies you went thru the partical zoo of the 60's and 70's. Any thoughts on the apparent hope for a new particle zoo via the EU's new toy when it comes on line? Has string theory actually produced a prediction of a new something - last I looked - years ago - it was all mind games and equations that could not be solved.

If all this money is just for Higgs - then where do we go from either a proof or dis-proof of Higgs? The dark matter, Dark energy, and gravity particle questions do not seem up for solution via this new toy - or am I just not understanding the plan?

Also a friend at U MD had a contract 15 years ago with a company in Japan to test a reactor based on qm's blink in and out of existence interpretation - I have not followed squat of late since I got this political bug in my bonnet. Have any new reactor designs been tested? Actually what I am asking for are some links on the topic -

Indeed it is a good thing I went down the actuarial road - as I know I would not have been up to the challenge of nuke science.

In any case - if we end up in the same old folks home, I promise to work on converting you to a theist. Till then I'll use DU for other objectives!

:toast:

:-)

[Selwynn]

111. You are avoiding the question and changing the subject.

The issue here is not proving god exists. No one here has started a thread saying "God exists."

YOU on the other hand have started a thread which includes the statement "God does NOT exist" and then consistently refused to provide any proof of that assertion.

Trying to change the subject and make this about your feeling that no one can prove God exists is IRRELEVANT. I am not claiming God exists. I'm asking YOU to back up your claim. That's all. Everything else here is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors to avoid the question.

[Stunster]

120. You've disproved that you are conscious!

After you have learned everything you can possibly learn at college about physics, cosmology, and chemistry, I ask you to show me which equations that explain same have a term in them that could possibly be the action of God.

Let me try the same reasoning:

"After you have learned everything you can possibly learn at college about physics, cosmology, and chemistry, I ask you to show me which equations that explain same have a term in them that could possibly be the action of benburch's consciousness"

[ElectroPrincess]

84. Ya know, on second thought ...

You're absolutely right -----> THERE IS NO GOD ... :boring:

I need another latte (or joint) just to keep up ;)

[papau]

89. Come - we drink and you make the first toast!

:toast:

peace

:-)

[Xipe Totec]

42. Interesting reply

It implies that science is only understandable to graduate students in physics. Does that mean that people who hold advanced degrees in other fields such as chemistry or biology are not true scientists?

What does science teach the non-physicists? Is truth the exclusive domain of the physicists?

[Selwynn]

56. Congratulations on using Dirty Trick #20!

44 Foul Ways to Win an Argument

Dirty Trick #20
Evade Questions, Gracefully
Spin artists who face questions from an audience lean how to predict most of the hard questions they will face and how to evade them, with skill and grace. One way to evade the question is to answer it with a joke that deflects the question. Another is to give a truistic answer (ex. How long will the troops have to remain in country X? Answer: as long as it is necessary and not one day longer.") A third is to give an answer so long and detailed that you manage by length of your answer to slide from the one question (a hard one) to another question (an easy one). And a fourth is to outright refuse to answer the question on the grounds that the answer would be so infinitely complicated and "over the heads" of the audience that they couldn't possibly comprehend it. Manipulators do not directly answer questions when direct answers would get them into trouble of force them to accept a responsibility they want to avoid facing. The learn to use vagueness, jokes, diversions, truisms or patronization to their advantage.

Congratulations on a classic case of argumentation cheap tactics.

[benburch]

63. Except it is over your head unless you have studied...

as I explain above.

[Selwynn]

96. That's not your call to make. Just present the evidence.

Still waiting on it..

[Stunster]

119. Scientism (*sigh*)

Most of the atheists I've personally encountered have been imbued with either an explicit or an implicit belief in scientism--roughly the view that the only possible valid forms of knowledge or rationally warranted belief are those yielded by the methods of the natural sciences; and that the only real entities are those which are posited by the natural sciences. Scientism is not itself science, and it's not proven or provable by science. It's a philosophical worldview. There are many strong philosophical arguments against scientism, and most of the atheists I've encountered have not been familiar with or particularly good at understanding the philosophical critique of scientism.

Scientism says, "science is the only way of obtaining true knowledge of reality." This statement, however, cannot itself be verified by the methods of science. So the first problem is scientism's self-referential incoherence. The statement of scientism is not itself a scientific statement. Its claim that the only way to arrive at true knowledge is through empirically verifiable procedures involving sensory perception cannot itself be verified through empirically verifiable procedures involving sensory perception.

The next problem is that scientism commits the logical fallacy of 'petitio principii', commonly known as 'begging the question'. It is like a blind man who claims that only through hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling can one know anything for certain about the world. Using only his four senses, though, he obviously cannot prove that there is no fifth sense--the sense of sight. Well, suppose there is a way of knowing reality, or some aspect of it, which is non-sensory or not amenable to the methods of the natural sciences, perhaps because it involves a non-physical reality. One couldn't establish that there wasn't such a non-sensory way of knowing or such a non-sensorily detectable reality, by showing that it could not be detected by the senses. That would be like a (bad) mathematician who claimed there was no number greater than 100 because his calculator only went up to 100.

The next problem is that scientism has too narrow a conception of experience for which it then fails to provide adequate warrant. Sensory experience is far from being the only kind of experience we have. We also commonly have moral experience, aesthetic experience, and the experience of rational thinking. Scientism epistemologically privileges sensory experience. But that privileging is not itself justified by anything we sense. Just from having sensory experiences one couldn't prove that sensory experience ought to be given epistemological privileges over other types of experience.

It might be objected that it is justified, because sensory experiences we have had before tend to be repeated under appropriately controlled conditions. This, of course, is inductive reasoning. But notoriously, Hume showed that there is no way to justify inductive reasoning on the basis of past sense-perception without circularity. Just because the chicken has always been fed at 9am every day up till now, doesn't justify the chicken in thinking that today, the farmer won't ring its neck. Analogously, just because inductive reasoning has served us well in the past doesn't prove that it's going to serve us well in future---unless you are already assuming the validity of inductive reasoning. The problem of induction is a large topic in philosophy of science, and scientism just naively ignores it, or assumes the problem away. (Hume's account itself, however, is not without problems of circularity, since he uses causation to explain induction, and induction to explain causation).

But of course, even if we ought to privilege inductive reasoning on pragmatic grounds, this tells us nothing about the nature of the realities which inductive reasoning invites us to posit. For example, we see an apple fall from a tree, and by a process of inductive reason, arrive at a law of gravity. But there is also the common experience of having thought, in the past, that something was morally wrong, and then concluding that the same type of thing will be morally wrong in the future. And while knowing about gravity can certainly be useful, so, surely, is knowing about morality. There is nothing in the inductive reasoning, per se, that dictates a scientistic ontology or a scientistic epistemology. Doing controlled experiments, in other words, is useful to the extent that we're interested in the information such experiments might yield. But if we have important interests which those kinds of experiment will not yield useful information, then they are to that extent not useful. Utility, and 'working', is always relative to our goals, our ends, our purposes, interests, and desires. And these may include a great deal or even be dominated by dimensions of experience which do not lend themselves to quantitative measurement or physical investigation. Some people find the benefits of technology highly enjoyable. Others find them thoroughly alienating, or, if not alienating as such, at least radically insufficient to attaining the goal of happiness. Technological benefits, in other words, may not 'work' for those people. We are familiar with the true life stories of people who 'had it all', but were in states of such profound psychological distress that they took their own lives.

But perhaps the biggest challenge to scientism now is the New Mysterian position recently developed in the philosophy of mind. That's another huge topic in philosophy of mind. The New Mysterians say that science, and human cognition more generally, is intrinsically and forever incapable of solving what Chalmers has called 'the Hard Problem of Consciousness. But rather than give up on materialism, they say that even though consciousness can't be fitted into a materialistic worldview, we should just have faith that materialism is true anyway. Naturally, theists find such a position amusingly ironic.

Thankfully not all atheists are philosophically naive adherents of scientism. There are non-scientistic versions of naturalism which are not as vulnerable to criticism as scientism is. With these people it's possible to have interesting and fruitful discussions about the nature and origins of life, consciousness, reason, morality, meaning, and the apparently fine-tuned structure of what Brian Greene has called The Elegant Universe. When these sorts of atheists say that they find no evidence for theism, I do scratch my head a bit, since to my way of thinking, evidence for theism is fairly readily apparent if you're prepared to define evidence in a non-scientistic way.

It strikes me at any rate that all the phenomena associated with reason and with value, as well as the intelligibility and order of the physical universe, are such as to suggest an 'inference to best explanation' type of reasoning (what the American philosopher C. S. Peirce called 'abductive inference') that quite naturally posits the theistic hypothesis as the best candidate explanation. And if it's ok for physicists to abductively infer such intrinsically invisible theoretical entities as the electromagnetic field, or curved space, or even the invisible laws of physics themselves to explain electromagnetic, gravitational and other physical phenomena, then I don't see any great difficulty in principle in abductively inferring, as the ultimate reality or ground of being, a physically invisible, mind-like, rational, moral consciousness, and then comparing this hypothesis with competing hypotheses which offer alternative explanations of the same phenomena (such as materialist, or Platonic explanations).

I often think that some atheists are operating with a concept of God which is not one that I, as a theist, would regard as adequate for my own thinking about God. And so I find myself saying, well, if that's what you mean by the term 'God', then I don't believe in that 'God' either. When we talk about, and more importantly experience Reason, or Goodness, I personally find it literally incredible that these phenomena can have arisen, or be adequately explained, on the basis of chance movements of impersonal matter-energy, and am immediately disposed to think that Reason and Goodness must be ontologically ultimate in some way. And I guess I just don't see what's so hard to accept about that. And since we never encounter reason and value phenomena independently of mind, then I hypothesize as a reasonable explanation thereof, that the rational moral minds we are familiar with must bear some relationship of analogy to that ontological ultimate Reason/Goodness.

[Selwynn]

143. That was outstanding - I need to re-read this tomorrow.

For several years I have been searching for a clear way to express my objections to people who use science as "scientism." But I've never come up with such a well articulated position.

I also found this definition in the skeptics dictionary:

Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless. This view seems to have been held by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1922) when he said such things as "The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science..." He later repudiated this view.

[immoderate]

212. If you read it enough...

You could ask if it's another instance of dirty trick #20. Too complicated. Throw in some straw man, it's "those scientists."

--IMM

[Selwynn]

221. You could ask, but the answer is an obvious no

Dirty Trick #20 cannot be confused as claiming that a complicated, detailed answer is in and of itself a trick. Some things are complicated. Some things require long answers. And even it something does not require a long answer yet one is given, that does not necessarily make it a fallacy or incorrect.

First and foremost, there is no straw man fallacy. But that's a nice and convenient term to through around that sounds sexy and discrediting and stands in well in place of actually reading the material.

Second, writing something long and complicated can be a dirty trick when the intention is specifically to deliberately avoid the question. In this case however, while the response wasn't actually to a specific question, it was making an argument.

Now, I have no problem if you disagree with the argument and can give clear logical reasons for that disagreement. But just disagreeing because something is "long" or complicated is unjustifiable by any standard.

As much as people with ADD might wish it so, the fact remains that a long argument does not necessarily mean any logical fallacy or cheap trick has been committed. It is only when the issue at hand is avoided, questions are deliberately not answered, or there is a clear specific attempt to dodge the issue or distort meaning that something wrong has been done.

What's more there is a simple summary of the overall point - consider it a cliff's notes versions for a short-attention span generation (also a generation that doesn't like challenging assertions that discredit opinions widely popular in particular contexts). And it comes from the Skeptics Dictionary no less:

Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless.

The point about begging the question is both logically valid and sound, and the analogy of the blind man is fair. If you disagree with that, you are certainly free to give a logical counter-example with specific refutations for us to consider.

Now with that said SD goes on to describe what might be called a "weak scientism" which I think is a much more reasonable position:


In the weak sense, scientism is the view that the methods of the natural sciences should be applied to any subject matter.


I think I agree that scientific method is one appropriate tool for virtually any subject of human experience and is not "out of place" in any discussion of any topic. However it is also one tool, not the tool. One tool that should be there among others. And when people try to argue differently, and say that scientific claims are the only basis for meaningful statements, they embrace and absurd logical contradiction which is simply matter of fact.

We could all - everyone, from all worldviews and perspectives - do a better job about being honest about how many times we need to say phrase like "I don't know" or "no one can no for certain." I find that the more I say those two statements the more logically justifiable my perspective on life gets.

Sel

[immoderate]

225. I think we agree in principle.

Whether #20 is appropriate requires me to revisit a voluble discourse that you already slept on. I'll demur for now.

The knowledge that is the result of scientific investigation is responsible for most (or all) of the advances in our civilization in the preceding millenia. It even made possible the social advances that religion likes to take credit for.

The philosophical stuff we're discussing here has little relevance to our lives, except (as Az points out) to fulfill emotional needs. And very smart people (PhDs, even!), using their best efforts, cannot agree.

About straw argument: If everyone that is claimed to be indulging in scientism ceased immediately, what would change?

---

Your final paragraph hits home for me. Some years ago I opined to some friends that if you want people to think you're smart, when they ask you a question, say, "I don't know." And if you do that consistently, people will think you're brilliant. I explained, with tongue slightly in cheek, that when someone asks you a question, they already know what they want to hear. If your answer deviates in the slightest, and it always does, you lose points. (Ample evidence of that around.)

Saying, "I don't know," amazingly, is never counted as ignorance. (Only assertions are.) The questioner then volunteers their response to their own question. You get points for listening, and some more by projection or reflection from the questioner.

For some time after that, I demonstrated the verity of my thesis for my friends by answering all questions with, "I don't know." And then allowing people to answer it themselves and give me the credit. Of course, you must be subtle. We were amazed at how well it works. Bonus was that it worked itself into a full fledged comic "schtick." I could get all my friends to crack up hysterically just by saying "I don't know," at the right time.

---

One other personal note. My father, who had a well deserved reputation as an honest man, and who I thought of as smart, even as a kid, was my original primary source of knowledge of the world. To questions such as we burn many keystrokes on, he would respond, "Nobody knows." To follow ups and qualifications he would respond ever more gently, "Nobody -- knows."

I would add that intellectual exercise is fun but doesn't change reality (with apologies to Heisenberg.)

--IMM

[indigobusiness]

188. Yeah, BRAVO...Let me add my KUDOS

Very well considered and expressed. You dissected the convolutions of the argument, and untied many of the knotts.

I agree with Selwynn: "outstanding". Good work!

[wtbymark]

230. good conjecture- but i will have to balk

on your hypothesis that this intrinsic fundimental building block has any 'goodness' let alone some plausible sense of reason. If you are looking for a true fundimental (which you are) goodness and reason are too complex to fit the criteria. I do see where you're leaning and even Whitehead made the theoligical mistake. But he stood to correct himself, he was, or at least wanted to maintain his theism. I don't think he ever answered his own question, but i do believe he answered THE question, in that, the appetition of feeling is the concrescence between the physical and mental poles of the universe, nothing more; and there is nothing less. This would also dictate social behavior up through the strata of consciousness and keep atoms together in one shot, that is one true test of a fundimental principle. In this infinitely small and simple nexus (even living) i cannot see room for any kind of complex deity

[Selwynn]

57. PS - I have taken a graduate level degree in physics, so lay it on me.

[benburch]

64. Good!

University of Chicago here... And then Fermilab. Now I am a humble computer hacker (it pays better.)

Show me one equation that explains physical process that requires God?

Since you have studied, and know them well, this should not be a problem for you if one exists.

I know of none, and I spent a long time looking for one, as I wanted to believe.

[papau]

91. physical process that requires God? Law giver does not work for you?

How would a process "require " God.

Organic Chem documentation for years had arrrows that covered up a complete lack of understanding of what was going on - so that could have been called God - of course now we have a handle on most of it.

Whatever is unkown can be brushed aside with the comment that we will know in the future.

I know of no way to set up a result that would prove "this requires GOD"

[Selwynn]

95. All I've asked for is for you to supply evidence.

Is that so hard for you to do?

I am not arguing for the existence of god.

I am however challeging you to defend your assertion that God absolutely does not exist by supplying evidence which supports that claim. I'm still waiting on that...

The moment I assert "God exists" is the moment you can demand evidence of me.

[Stunster]

117. That assumes what you need to prove

That only physics discloses the full nature of reality.

It's scientISM at its lamest.

I've done graduate work in the philosophy of quantum mechanics, btw, if that's any help.

[ElectroPrincess]

87. Bummer, my advanced degree is merely in physiological psychology

but I was the only girl in my High School's Physics class. Also I'll be staying in a Holiday Inn Express tomorrow night. Can I play - please please? LOL <mega-tease>

It's so nice to be merely average or a little above average on the intelligence scale. I see here that it must be frustrating as hell not to just "have faith" in a higher being ... like what-EVER form is most comfortable for one's personal mindset, temperament and value system.

[President Jesus]

23. It threatens hard-core Christians because...

...at the heart of their beliefs is the idea that all human beings are born wicked, and that ONLY through faith in God can they know (or do) goodness.

I find this to be inane, but you have to understand that for this reason, they are fundamentally threatened by anyone who does not have faith in God. You are, quite literally to them, an evil-doer.

Next time you ave a conversation with a devout, conservative Catholic, or an Evangelical, ask them about this. When you hear their explanation, it starts to make their whole worldview make 'sense.' For me it allowed me to finally understand why they readily embrace war, as well as embrace someone like Bush who spent his first 40 years partying.

[rzemanfl]

26. So if we see one of these folks drowning or in need of CPR

should we let them die rather than having their value system upset by a non-believer doing a good thing?

[President Jesus]

53. doesn't really matter...

...because if a "wicked" person saved their life, they would just chalk that up to "God's will." After all, anything and everything that doesn't fit neatly in their black-and-white worldview can simply be attributed to God's will.

I really don't have an answer how to deal with people like this.

[rzemanfl]

24. I too have no religion, however, if there is a God who could

take us back to November 2000 and get Gore some more votes in Florida by giving folks an intuitive understanding of butterfly ballots or however he/she/it wanted to do it, I would be on my knees daily from there on in.

[pretzel4gore]

25. then we're just meat.....

and right and wrong are ....neither here nor there. And criminal pigs suffer exactly same fate as saints, people who sacrifice themselves for others, lil innocent kids raped and murdered for fun...etc
If there is no god, then why the hell are we at DU? i mean, who cares, as nothing exists as soon as we die, nothing. ...there was never any slavery, never any deathcamps like aushwitz....bush never done nothing wrong on 911, even if he ordered the 'operation' to make it so....and we who hate the fukker are wasting our time/energy, we should be robbing and taking and lying and living like pigs cuz, well tomorrow we die....

[Az]

27. Because we quite like being alive

We are meat with feelings. We are meat that feals connected to other meat. Of course we dot use such a nonsensical term because we do not think of ourselves as just meat. That takes all the sense of existance away from the matter. We are sentient. We are connected to one another. We strive not only to better ourselves but those we care about as well. This is the framework of society and why we strive to be moral. We honor those who work to help others and within this context we can come to realise that none stand as tall as those that stoop to help others.

[benburch]

31. You sum it up nicely. Almost.

We're just smart monkeys. And we're made entirely of meat.

Except that what exists is posterity. It is for posterity that we are on DU, so that other bags of meat and bones can have the same chance we had to enjoy life. I enjoy my life, and don't find it to be worthless. Others who came before me were good enough to leave the world livable for me, and I feel that I need to do the same.

The nonexistence of God, you see, does not make good and evil meaningless, in fact, if you are doing good just because it is good, and not because of some God who might disapprove, doesn't that have MORE merit?

[pretzel4gore]

45. aristotle and all them smart guys argued about this....

theology apparently flowed from the arguments....we don't need to reinvent the wheel. but it's obvious that something beyond our understanding is at work, from just looking at the physical universe. time has no beginning nor can it ever end, whereas matter? well it can neither be created nor destroyed, but simply change. e=mc squared etc... (or was that mc=e plus z?) :crazy: anyway, there's an eternity, we live in it, there's infinity, we take up space in it....somehow, in all the vastness of eternity, and the immensity of infinity, right in one lil spot, at one time, not even a dot in the sky, or a stitch in time etc things happened like matter, then life, then intelligence, and all at once, in one place! you may not think this amazing, but just the temperature of earth alone, the prsessure for water to exist in 3 forms, and so on....to put it simply, mathematiclly humanity couldn't exist unless there's a god...btw animals are spirits too, but they're forever innocent of monstrosity (even monsters like sasquatch or the seti or martians etc) whereas humans can be truly evil

[papau]

92. No - not more merit - but also not less merit - and indeed a values

based spiritual life need not use the term GOD - as our friends in the east have shown us.

but I wonder about using the term religious to describe that life.

[Xipe Totec]

141. Don Quixote exists in posterity

Does that make him real?

[eallen]

35. And how does a god -- if it exists -- change that?

Your view of right and wrong is determined by some god judging you in the afterlife? Forgive me, if that doesn't give me much comfort in your moral judgment. The only meaning you find in life is from the promise of heaven? I hope you find enough meaning still in this mortal domain not to rush off to the next one. You worry without a god to make things alright afterwards, there really is injustice in this world? Yep, there is. If there weren't, there would be no point in working to make it better.

[rzemanfl]

40. Folks who think they can't behave themselves unless they are

promised everlasting paradise in return puzzle me.

[bloom]

169. It seems that if you believed in the afterlife -

of God sending people to Heaven or Hell - depending on how they had lived.... And that Heaven or Hell was the ultimate destination - why would it matter if someone dropped nuclear bombs on large populations? :nuke: They would be going to Heaven or Hell anyway... :shrug:

I don't get people singing about the glory of death and going to Heaven. I believe in life on earth.


To think that this is all there is - then to take that life or to destroy it in other ways (doing things that cause mental illness or PTSDs in others - for example) - is far more of a crime - since there is no future (happier) life.

[Philosophy]

28. I agree, and here is my scientific justification

In my epistemology there are no such things as "beliefs". The only valid knowledge that can exist independent of any human mind is scientific theory. The non-existence of God is a legitimate scientific theory - it is supported by all available evidence, i.e. the lack of empirical evidence of God's existence, and it predicts that no such evidence exists. So until such evidence of the existence of God is produced, and this theory thus falsified, the theory that there is no God is true (insofar as anything can ever be), therefore there is no God.

[Spinzonner]

30. Well, in a circular sort of way I guess it's valid

since you haven't bothered to explain what it is you mean by this 'God' entity that you refer to.

[Selwynn]

61. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Spin it however you like, a categorical statement that there is no God is not even a statement most scientists will make. Most reasonable people are willing to acknolwegdge a profound difference betweeen saying "there is insufficient evidence in my mind to justify a believe in God" from saying "I can tell you with certainty that there is no god."

All science is beliefs. They are beliefs based on all available evidence. However I prefer drawing inferential conclusions from those beliefs that are affirmative. In other words, I prefer saying "considering the scientific data giving evidence for a round earth, I feel sufficiently comfortable in my belief that the earth is round." I prefer that over affirming negating statements based on an absense of evidence, "given the complete lack of scientific data disproving the existence of God, I chose to believe God does not exist, based on that completely lack of any scientific information on the subject."

I would rather say what is more accurate and less controversial: I see no compelling scientific evidence to date that necessitates the existence of a God or gods.

There is actually no scientific evidence which supports the non-existence of God. None. There is simply a lack of evidence which supports the existence of God. The two are not identical.

[benburch]

74. Not insufficient.

NONE.

Not a bit.

You have more evidence of the Keebler Elves (cookies) than for God.

And you've missed my point. I can invent any hypothetical critter, say, a Unicorn with as much justification as those with faith have for God.

And I am not saying not to have your faith, just that you need to understand that nothing whatsoever supports that faith.

And I STILL wonder why this is so threatening to believers?

Faith does not require proof, after all. In fact, as I understand it, Faith is supposed to have more virtue sans proof.

[Selwynn]

94. False statements

You have more evidence of the Keebler Elves (cookies) than for God.


This is not a true statement. Assuming you define evidence as explicitly empirical - excluding subjective things like experiences - then you have identical evidence for the existence of Keebler Evles as for the existence of God. Not more. In fact, arguably you have less given the fact that even some scientists concede that while there is certainly nothing that can count as conclusive proof of the existence of God, there are a lot of interesting developments in advanced sciences that make that possibility more plausible than ever before. That isn't an argument for God, just an acknowledgment that the kind of false absolutes based on logically fallacious claims you keep asserting are wholly unjustifiable.

Personally, I wonder why it is so threatening to non-believers to accept the factual reality that the question of the existence of God or gods or lack thereof is largely an open question for which no complete and final answer is currently possible, given our conditions of finitude and our current understanding. Though, I don't actually lump all "non-believers" into one large group like you did, believers - I was just mimicing your statement.

One of the challenges you face is some fairly narrow definitions which are pretty limiting. For example, faith without foundation, i.e. blind faith is called fideism. It is certainly not the only interpretation of faith. As St. Anselm said, faith for meaning is faith-seeking-understanding, and many believe that faith should and in fact must be coupled with reason and experience.

The other part of the problem is a narrow conception of "God" and a narrow conception of "religion." For example, though I'm sure you've assumed I must believe different, I can affirm for you that I do not believe God "exists." But that is because I believe that which may be appropriately labeled with the name "god" is not a "being" along side other beings, or one among many existing things along side other existing things. That which I name "god" is being-itself, the source and ground of being, or put more specifically, the power of in being that distinguishes, sets apart and overcomes non-being in order to be.

Religion is not necessarily defined as institutional dogma and creed. I agree with Tillich when he claims that being religious in its innermost sense is a state of being ultimately concerned with one's own being and being universally, thereby asking passionately the questions of the meaning of existence and being willing to receive answers even when those answers hurt. Furthermore, I believe that religion is essentially a language game. We have certain experiences - experiences that are often difficult to concretely quantify yet part of our reality just the same. We struggle to find language to best express those experiences in meaningful ways. For some, the symbols and metaphors of religion are part of a valued language set that help symbolically convey those experiences in potentially powerful ways. For others, other language sets and modes of communications are equally powerful.

You may dislike or reject any or all of these interpretations. But the point is there are an great multitude of kinds of beliefs in god or gods, and a great multitude of perspectives on the nature of faith and of religion. So many in fact that your dogmatic empathic assertion that "god does not exist" falls flat to those who would agree with you and say "I agree that god does not exist, because god is not a being along side other beings on the plain of existence - god is the plane of existence." Me personally, I just reject it because the assertion that the traditional theistic deity-being of classical theism cannot be proven not to exist. Whether or not there is any evidence that proves him to exist or not is really irrelevant. I didn't start a thread that says "God exists." But you did start one that says "God does not exist" and have no sufficient justification for that assertion, nor have you clearly defined that specifically you mean by the word "God" as though there was somehow universal agreement on a definition of that term. Clearly, there is not.

I am not even remotely threatened by any of your assertions, both because they are logically unsupportable but also because you are basically quibbling with me because you speak German and I speak French. I don't particularly care that you think I should speak German instead of French, and I don't ask you to start speaking French instead of German.

Have a good night.
Sel

[papau]

105. We disagree - but only on the definition of "evidence" that is valid

in a discussion of GOD.

[Stunster]

115. Bad epistemology

In general, if God exists, and if God did something, why should it be
necessary that we be able to understand how God did it? Wouldn't we
kinda have to be God in order to understand precisely how God acts?

How is electromagnetic radiation capable of transmitting messages
across the Internet? Well, it propagates at the speed of light through
the electromagnetic field. But how does it manage to do that? Etc.

One can continue this scientific story, but in the end we will end up
saying "It just does. That's just how it is. Things are just like that."

We get to the basic processes and laws of nature, and we stop.

But would it be in place to say, "But the basic processes and laws of
nature (call it Nature for short) don't really explain anything
anything, do they? I mean, essentially all you're saying is 'Nature
diddit'"?

Ah, but at least we understand how Nature operates, using our
mathematical reasoning powers. Leaving to one side where mathematical
reason comes from, or why there should be such a thing, couldn't it be
the case that the way God operates vastly transcends the abilities of
finite mathematical reasoners to comprehend, using their finite
mathematical powers of reasoning?

It seems to me that it would be begging the question to insist that if God operates in some way, or does some particular thing (like raise Jesus from the dead and supernaturally produce his image on the relic known as the Shroud of Turin), then it must be the case that God did it in a way that our finite powers of mathematical reasoning (and
other finite cognitive powers) must be able to comprehend.

And in fact, it might be that Nature is like this too. It might be the
case that there are some aspects of Nature the explanations for which
are such that they are beyond our abilities to understand. (Some
philosophers take this view with respect to consciousness itself, most
prominently Colin McGinn and the New Mysterians).

So essentially, we come down to the following: there are a bunch of
phenomena that our conscious minds are more or less aware of. These
include, a mathematically intelligible physical world; consciousness;
rationality; moral experience; religious experience; aesthetic
experience; the experience of meaning, love, goodness, etc. And we ask
the general question, How Come? And some people answer, 'Nature Diddit', by which they mean that blind, impersonal material processes obeying inexorable purposeless regularities did it, and that these processes just happen to exist and have the properties they do. That's just the way it is. Their abductive hypothesis is that the best explanation is 'matter in motion', or something like that. They take material process as basic.

Others say that mind/consciousness/reason/goodness is basic and
transcends all material processes, and their abductive hypothesis is
that all the existence of all these phenomena can best be explained by the existence and creative action of a transcendent Mind.

Both hypotheses are examples of the 'inference to the best explanation' type of reasoning. One posits material process as the best explanation. The other posits transcendent creative Mind as the best explanation. In neither case is there an attempt to take the explanatory process further. They are simply competing explanatory end-points.

Now, it's not obvious to me that the materialist abductive hypothesis
is clearly more reasonable than the theistic abductive hypothesis. But
that's not my point. My point is that it's a poor argument to say
that the theistic hypothesis doesn't explain anything. After all, one
might as well say that the materialist hypothesis doesn't explain
anything, because within each hypothesis something is taken as
explanatorily and causally and ontologically *basic*.

The materialist may reply that only the materialist hypothesis allows
for quantitative, mathematical explanations and sensory perceptual
forms of evidence. But insisting that quantitative mathematics and
sensory perception is the be-all and end-all of explanation and
evidence is precisely what's at issue as between the two competing hypotheses. Hence that insistence is a systematic example of the logical fallacy of begging the question. The issue at stake, in other words, is precisely whether quantitative sciences and sensory perception disclose in principle the full nature of reality.

Obviously, if theism is true, then they don't. But then one can't non-circularly show that theism is not true simply because theism is not verified by quantitative sciences and sensory perception. That would be an egregious logical error. It would be like saying there is no number greater than 100 simply because your calculator only goes up to 100.

In other words, if theism (or indeed any form of supernaturalism) is
true, then it's ridiculous to question it because it doesn't conform
itself to the methods and criteria of natural science. This is the
kind of mind-boggling stupidity that led the Soviets to declare that
atheism is true because Yuri Gargarin had been up in space and found
no God there.

[htuttle]

32. Sometimes I wonder if my cells believe in me

I mean, what is a human but a huge collective enterprise of millions of individual living things. Somehow, this cooperation leads to the electro-chemical pattern I like to call 'me'.

Do my cells know I exist? Am I their 'God'? Do they pray to me? Would I care if they did? Without them, I wouldn't exist. They obviously aren't intelligent enough to even have those concepts, so I don't worry about it.

And then one day I started thinking about the way our biosphere works, how the plant life scoops in the energy, then the animal life feeds off of it. About the Nitrogen cycle, and all the other cycles, and how different our planet is now than it was when Life originated. (and I realize that this is basically Gaia theory)

I don't think there is a Jehovah. In fact, I'm rather sure of it. But I'm not so sure that animal life is the be-all, end-all top level of organic organization on this planet. I think it's entirely likely that our planet's biosphere is just as valid a 'being' as you or my dog.

Biology could describe Life's organization like this: cells -> organs -> organisms -> bioregions -> biospheres. The thing is, most of the time, we stop thinking at 'organisms'. But no organism can exist without it's biosphere (or a synthetic facsimile), so why consider them 'separate'?

I don't know if the biosphere 'thinks'. It doesn't appear and speak to us, but I don't hold many conversations with my cells, either. I don't care if my cells believe in me, as long as they don't go cancerous on me.

I don't consider my belief in the possibility that the biosphere is 'alive as a whole' a religion. I don't think there is anything going on that can't ultimately be studied and described by science. It's not so much of matter of 'does the biosphere exist', since it clearly does, but rather, 'what does the biosphere mean'?

Just some thoughts from one 'atheist' to another.

[benburch]

36. I certainly could not exclude that.

BTW, did you ever read "Blood Music" by Greg Bear? Great book in which your hypothetical conversation with your cells becomes a nightmare.

[htuttle]

39. Just googled some reviews of it

Sounds interesting. I'll check it out.

[catbert836]

37. I'm not threatened by you.

And if you're a good person, I believe God will reward you no matter what your personal beliefs about Him are. :)

[papau]

41. what I know to be true threaten you in your faith? - Good grief - I hope

no one feels threaten!

You have faith there is no God, although you can not prove it (and please - the can't prove a negative does not fly since you are asserting a positive - that you have or know a FACT - namely that God does not exist).

I am not threaten by your faith, and I hope you are not threaten by mine!

peace,

:-)

[benburch]

43. No, of course I cannot prove it.

But I can cite the total nonexistence of positive evidence and the fact that physical law operates without a God as being the bars that proof of a deity would have to cross.

If I assert the existence of Werewolves, you would rightly have to ask me to show you one, or even the spoor of one. You, on the other hand do not have a burden of proof as I cannot demand that you show to me that no Werewolves exist.

[papau]

46. Sorry - creation happened - and science can not explain.

:-)

But here is an interesting article that smells of Hawking like desparation to remove GOD fron creation - although it only pushes GOD back to creating the first universe


http://prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php.6701.html

Interesting idea that we can push "GOD" back many cycles as we pass an atomic-sized "seed" through the wormhole capable of regenerating the civilisation on the other side in the new universe, and so on and so on.

[htuttle]

47. Yet!

We didn't used to be able to explain electricity or the weather, either.

[papau]

49. Ah faith - faith in Science - faith in GOD - faith in string theory :-)

It is good to have faith! And who knows - maybe our current explanations are "correct" :-)

:-)

By the way - I am still waiting for the forcaster that can handle the Boston area! I have faith that we will get better at the weather!

[htuttle]

65. I never said I didn't have faith

I just don't believe in God.

:)

[papau]

78. okey - dokey whatever floats your boat! :-)

:-)

[Xipe Totec]

50. Sounds like a statement of faith

But not all problems are amenable to neat scientific solutions.

Kurt Gödel shook the foundations of mathematics with his incompleteness theorem which essentially states that any formal system is either incomplete or inconsistent. Mathematics is one such system, science is another.

There are always truths that cannot be proven within any formal system.

http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html

[eallen]

122. Why are those who don't know mathematical logic so fond of Gödel?

Each formal system has its own properties, and it is not the case that there is some form of incompleteness that applies to all of them. Euclidean geometry, to take one example, is provably consistent, semantically complete, and decidable. So is first-order monadic logic. So is real algebra.

Gödel proved that first-order predicate logic is semantically complete, but that set theory, if consistent, is not. That last is what is usually meant when someone says he "shook the foundations of mathematics." I bet most of those who say that are unable to define what semantic completeness means. Second-order arithmetic is semantically complete, but undecidable.

[Xipe Totec]

135. And by implication,

those who DO know mathematical logic are not so fond of Gödel?

"Gödel showed that within a rigidly logical system such as Russell and Whitehead had developed for arithmetic, propositions can be formulated that are undecidable or undemonstrable within the axioms of the system. That is, within the system, there exist certain clear-cut statements that can neither be proved or disproved. Hence one cannot, using the usual methods, be certain that the axioms of arithmetic will not lead to contradictions ... It appears to foredoom hope of mathematical certitude through use of the obvious methods. Perhaps doomed also, as a result, is the ideal of science - to devise a set of axioms from which all phenomena of the external world can be deduced"

- Carl Boyer, History of Mathematics


Who, pray tell, knows mathematical logic and is not fond of Gödel? (your learned person excluded, of course).

Tell me too, if it is not too much trouble, how does the undecidability of Second-order arithmetic contradict the assertion that given any formal system there exist statements which are true but cannot be proven within that formal system. Second-order arithmetic is complete and undecidable, not complete and consistent, which is Gödel's point.

All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions ...

Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ...

PS - Just because I am fond of Gödel, it does not mean I am unfamiliar with mathematical logic. Do not presume.
:hi:

[eallen]

148. I'm quite fond of Gödel.

"Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved."

No, he did not. He showed it for systems whose axioms are recursively enumerable and that have a certain expressive strength, or as Boyer put it informally, for "a logical system such as Russell and Whitehead had developed for arithmetic." As I previously stated, less expressive systems, such as Euclidean (plane) geometry are consistent, complete, and decidable. You even can find programs that will prove or disprove any claim in plane geometry. In histories and popularizations that aren't aimed at a technical audience, the author typical elides and paraphrases, because they don't expect the readers to know the technical terms.

"Second-order arithmetic is complete and undecidable, not complete and consistent, which is Gödel's point."

Actually, I think I led you into an error here. Second-order arithmetic is not semantically complete, as I previously stated. What I meant to say is that it is categorical. It also is consistent.

[Xipe Totec]

170. My understanding of Second-Order Logic

Is that it was demolished by Russel's paradox before Gödel got a chance to get his licks in:

"Second-order logic lacks soundness and completeness theorems
It is a corollary of Gödel's incompleteness theorem that one cannot have any notion of provability of second-order formulas that simultaneously satisfies these three desired attributes:

(Soundness) Every provable second-order sentence is universally valid, i.e., true in all domains.
(Completeness) Every universally valid second-order formula is provable.
("Effectiveness") There is a proof-checking algorithm. (This third condition is often taken so much for granted that it is not explicitly stated.)

This is sometimes expressed by saying that second-order logic does not admit a proof theory. In this respect second-order logic differs from first-order logic.

When predicate logic was invented by Frege, he did use different variables to distinguish quantification over objects from quantification over properties and sets; but he did not see himself as doing two different kinds of logic. After the discovery of Russell's Paradox it was realized that something was wrong with his system. Eventually logicians found that restricting Frege's logic in various ways—to what is now called first-order logic—eliminated this problem: sets and properties cannot be quantified over in first-order-logic alone. The now-standard hierarchy of orders of logics dates from this time.

It was found that set theory could be formulated as an axiomatized system within the apparatus of first-order logic (at the cost of several kinds of completeness, but nothing so bad as Russell's Paradox), and this was done (see Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory), as sets are vital for mathematics. Arithmetic, mereology, and a variety of other powerful logical theories could be formulated axiomatically without appeal to any more logical apparatus than first-order quantification, and this led to a general decline in work in second (or any higher) order logic.

(snip)

In recent years second-order logic has made something of a recovery, buoyed by George Boolos' interpretation of second-order quantification as plural quantification over the same domain of objects as first-order quantification.

(snip)

The existential fragment (EMSO) of monadic second-order logic (MSO) is second-order logic without the universal quantifier. Over words, every MSO formula can be converted into a deterministic finite state machine. This again can be converted into an EMSO formula. Thus EMSO and MSO are equivalent over words. For trees as input, this result holds as well. However, over the finite grid Σ + + , this property does not hold any more, since the languages recognized by tiling systems are not closed under complement. Since a universal quantifier is equivalent to a negated existential quantifier, which cannot be expressed, alternations of universal and existential quantifiers generate bigger and bigger classes of languages over Σ + + . "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_order_logic

This last part gets into my area of interest, finite state machines and their application in compiler design.

Thank you for the clarification regarding second-order arithmetic. I did take your statement as given rather than validating it as I ought to have done.

kindest regards,

Xipe

[eallen]

190. Russell's paradox has more to do with set theory.

I don't know much about second-order set-theory. Second-order arithmetic isn't semantically complete: there are valid formulas that aren't provable. On the other hand, it is categorical: there is only one model, up to isomorphism.

[muriel_volestrangler]

137. Science is not a formal system

in the way that Gödel used the term in his incompleteness theorem.

[Xipe Totec]

138. Science without formality is just another religion

Science is a formal axiomatic system and falls well within the scope of Gödel's analysis. A formal system is one that rigorously follows rules. This is the essence of mathematics and a goal and inspiration for science. Mathematics is the lingua franca of science.

So what happens when the chosen language of science is unable to utter a truth because there is no word for it in its chosen language?

[muriel_volestrangler]

140. No, it is not a formal system

If you think it is, then please describe its grammar, and state all of its axioms and rules of inference.

Science depends on observations. New observations can be made which invalidate earlier assumptions. That means it is not a formal system.

The possible inability of the language of science to express a truth would proably cause people to extend the language. In any case, it would have nothing to do with Gödel's theorem, because that was about truths that can be expressed, but cannot be proved.

[Xipe Totec]

142. As I said, ~FORMAL -> RELIGION

However, Science is a formal system. You can change what is known through science, but you cannot change science itself.

Axioms:

1).- The Universe can be understood through observation.
2).- Cause precedes effect.
3).- The Universe behaves in repeatable, predictable patterns.
4).- patterns of behavior of the universe can be described through organizing principles.
5).- These organizing principles must be testable. They are tentative and subject to falsification through observation.
6).- That which is not falsifiable lies outside the scope of science.

Gödel's theorem is indeed about truths that can be expressed, but cannot be proved. It states that what is provable is only a subset of what it true. And since science deals only with what is provable. Then there are truths that lie beyond the grasp of science by definition.

[muriel_volestrangler]

146. Quantum mechanics has plenty of exceptions to your third axiom

what you have written down are some guidelines for science (which will run into problems in some areas such as quantum theory). But they do not make it a formal system. If science were a formal system, there could not be disagreement between scientists on subjects such as punctuated equilibrium. They would just recheck their proofs, and agree that all but one had an error in.

You have also not produced any kind of grammar for science, or the rules of inference. These are needed before you can call it a formal system, in Gödel's sense. In fact, your axioms don't mean anything without a grammar for them.

[Xipe Totec]

147. Once again, you confuse science with the products of science

When scientists disagree, they do so within the formal rules of science. If you step outside the rules of science then you are dealing with metaphysics. i.e., religion. That quantum theory is running into trouble with causality just means that it is getting perilously close to the edge.

If you assert that science is not a formal system, then you assert a priori that it is subject to internal inconsistency and therefore not a proper basis for examining the validity of reality.

Pick your poison.

[muriel_volestrangler]

150. I don't think you understand the meaning of 'formal system'

"a formal language (alphabet and grammar) and a deductive apparatus (axioms and rules of inference)."

http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?formal

It's no use saying "science is a bit like that". It has to conform to that definition exactly, or it is not truly 'formal'. Gödel's proof relies on the system having precise rules of inference.

That science is not a formal system does not mean it is not a proper base for examining reality, nor does it mean that it must be internally inconsistent (though I'm not claiming that science as we know it now is necessarily consistent).

To claim that everything outside the bounds of science is metaphysics or religion is childish. What about art or politics?

[Xipe Totec]

152. You're missing the point

Gödel's theorem establishes a minimum standard for formal systems. If science abandons formality then it fails by default to meet the standards of consistency and completeness established for first-order logic. Therefore it is weaker, not stronger than a formal system.

meta = beyond. Metaphysics = beyond physics. By definition out of bounds of physics. Religion, art and politics are therefore metaphysics.

Thank you for engaging me in this discussion. Unfortunately, I do have other matters to attend to. Do not take offense if fail to respond further.

Peace. :hi:

[benburch]

55. Actually we have no proof that there was a Creation.

We do know to the extent that we can that there is a time horizon we cannot look past in which for all purposes you can say time started. In fact, "before" may not even make sense in this context; there may have been NO before, as our concepts of existence require time.

However, if all your God did was to light the fuse and leave his Creation to run by itself, then that is hardly God as most world religions would understand it.

And it is an assertion that is not even disprovable in theory. Therefore I exclude this possibility from discussion as I am only interested in what may be proven or disproved.

[papau]

83. only interested in what may be proven or disproved. - ok - then why post

in a forum that by definition is about faith and not about proof?

By the way - "before" is a very real concept - the idea that time is undefined and there is no before is only the result of the catch22 of not being able to explain creation.

[trotsky]

109. Time is an inherent property of our universe.

Thinking about "before" the beginning of the universe is akin to walking north from the North Pole. It can't be done.

[papau]

112. Oh - but I do think of the before! :-) - Check Science forum

:-)

the bubble/wormhole seeded from prior universe paper that is in Science is all about "before"

:-)

[Xipe Totec]

54. Do not presume that only what is provable can be true.

Gödel showed the weakness of that presumption with his first and second incompleteness theorems. Nor should we presume that mathematical and logical truth encompass all necessary truths. There may well be many others. Plato felt that necessary truths could be found in aesthetics and ethics, also.

see post #50 for more.

[benburch]

62. I don't assume that.

Empirical knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge, if not as useful for prediction.

I do not state that there is no God, just that you cannot show it to me.

Nothing in all of what we know about the Universe requires a God. And that is with study on your part, provable. (I do not intend to educate you here.) If you do not believe me, ask any qualified theoretical physicist.

Show me this God, or any physical fact that requires one, and I will change my mind 100% immediately.

Until then, the lack of evidence is such that I might as well believe in the Keebler Elves.

[Xipe Totec]

70. You contradicted yourself

The very title of your thread is "There is no God.", Now you say: "I do not state that there is no God, just that you cannot show it to me." It is well that you do not intend to educate me. For that small grace, I thank you.

I am not interested in converting you to a believer. Re-read my posts and you will find that I did not postulate that God exists or that he/she/it did not exist. My objection is to the use of science as if it was a religion, which it is not. You claim that "Science tells us that nothing we know now about the Universe requires a God, or even allows one to exist." I for one have not seen such a flat statement in any scientific journal or book that I have ever come across. Scientists who have spoken on the subject generally are more circumspect and state that the existence of God is not a proper scientific question. I agree with that position. There are many scientists who believe in God and many who do not. Their belief in a supreme being (or lack thereof) has not affected their ability to function as scientists.

[benburch]

71. Something you can present no evidence of...

can be presumed not to exist. And I do presume that.

This is not a contradiction.

Show me one shred of real evidence, and you have me.

[Xipe Totec]

72. But I don't want to "have you"

In not interested in your religious beliefs, only in your scientific ones. I do not like to see science misused. Science is not a religion and people who claim to have scientific training ought not to speak as if they were priests rendering dogma from the holy scriptures to the addled masses.

To quote Rutherford's adage - if you can't explain to a barmaid in five minutes what you are doing, you don't really know what you are doing.

[benburch]

73. Well, if the truth is now dogma, you might have a point.

But I think we'll just have to agree to disagree as one can only really debate with those with an open mind.

[Selwynn]

51. If you were in fact a rational person, then you would realize ---

-- that it is not possible to prove there is no God.
-- It is also not possible to prove that when you die, you cease to exist.
-- It is also not possible to prove that before you were born you did not exist in any form.

-- It is also not the case that there is any agreement in science about the subject of God, save for some general agreement that it isn't a subject that is part of the scope of science. It is certainly not true that science currently does not allow for the existence of a god, in fact if anything, recent scientific discoveries create even more room for the existence of something that might be called "god."

-- It is also not possible to prove that not entitled created the universe, nor possible to prove that none oversees it now.

I am happy that your belief in the nonexistence of God and the finality of death give you great peace of mind. I do not want you to change from beliefs that give you peace.

But if you are going to profess "reason," then I'm going to hold you to that standard: all of your statements of to this point are categorically logically invalid.

To answer your question, nothing you believe to be true threatens anything in my life. In fact I accept the possibility that your beliefs may in fact be correct.

Further, I'm most concerned that your beliefs give you peace of mind and - in effect - "work" for you. As long as they lead you to conclusions of compassionate activity in your world, and healthy nurturing relationships with your fellow humans, I don't care by what "belief" road you get there, and I don't ask you to change.

Judging by the way some people here deal with people of faith, you'd think we had just cooked their pet dog for dinner.

Sel

[Dookus]

66. ah yes

once again, the put-upon people of faith.

Actually, if you wish to be treated badly by society, try being an atheist. I don't understand why believers, who control just about every aspect of our society, are so sensitive to criticism.

The fact is, religion has been used as a tool to murder, oppress, steal and plunder for millennia. I think all liberals should approach it with great suspicion.

[Selwynn]

98. Ah yes... you distort my meaning

I don't know how to make this any clearer than I have repeatedly stated. So I'll just try to speak very specifically here:

I wholeheartedly accept the trials and tribulations of non-believing folk in a nation currently under siege by religious fundamentalism, and in a world so often ravaged by institutional religion.

That is why I strongly, fiercely support separation of church and state. That is one of the biggest reasons why I contribute financially to the ACLU - because in addition to all the other good work they do, the protect the rights and liberties of those who choose no faith against the people determined to make their lives a living hell.

Now, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read the post which I was responding to. My statement about people of faith was a mimic of the previous posters converse statement. The fact is, atheists have it rough. And guess what, liberal/progressive Christians have it rough. Guess what else, non-Christian religion folks have it rough.

I am right with you if you want to emphasize the trials of being an atheist. Right up to the point where a person attempts to polarize the issue and imply something like "atheists are so persecuted, but no people of faith are persecuted." Those kinds of all or nothing statements or just absurd. Anyone can stop and think and accept the fact that ok, it is probably very likely that liberal/progressive minded religious people are feeling very threatened these days - threatened by religious fanatics who hate them, and threatened by non-religious folk who lump them all together into one sweeping false generalization and hate them.

Religion has been used as a tool of murder, oppression and the like. So has every other institution throughout history at some point, religious or otherwise. Institutional religion has a sea or problems. But the root of the problems are institutional problems stemming from basic human nature. Get enough people together who start to form hierarchical structures, and you start to get problems - whether religions is in the mix or not.

Whether or not you think all liberals should approach it with suspicion, you had best get used to the fact that there are plenty of liberals who are religious. There's room in my big tent for you if there's room for me in yours.

[Dookus]

103. Sorry Selwynn

but you have consistently played the martyr about religious persecution, and I just think it's funny.

I completely understand why you would not like for people to criticize your religion. I really do. But I think you should surface for air, look around, and realize that the religious control everything in our culture, and you are in no danger.

As to the "big tent" argument, it fails on me. I'm not suggesting, nor has anyone here ever suggested, that christians be removed from the party. I think you go out of your way to find any intimation of that. I do think you should recognize the fact that atheists and gays and women and non-christians and others have good reason to be suspicious of christians and their motives. Unfortunately, liberal christianity is NOT the predominant form of christianity on display in this country.

I don't know what denomination you belong to, but I like to use the example of catholics (which I used to be). Even if one is a liberal catholic and disagrees with the church on certain issues, one is STILL supporting the corrupt and decadent power structure of the church by remaining a member of it. If you put a dollar in the collection plate, you're supporting it. If you stay on their rolls, you're supporting it.

I feel the same way about good liberals who let their children be boy scouts. yes, the boy scouts do good things, as does the church. But by letting your children be a member, and supporting it, you are in fact helping maintain their bigotry against gays and atheists.

[Selwynn]

110. I think you have me confused with someone else.

I don't recall playing the martyr about religious persecution. Though, if you could post some examples of where you think I've come off that way maybe I could clarify.

Let my try to clarify even further: I don't think that religious people are in some special class of great persecution in America. I think that internally, liberal religious folk, particularly liberal Christians - especially those who have a liberal theology as well as politic - deal with a lot of extra problems and ostracizing, and that can feel lonely and disappointing. But that's not the same thing as saying I feel there is a rash of extreme persecution going on. I don't think I've ever said that.


I completely understand why you would not like for people to criticize your religion. I really do. But I think you should surface for air, look around, and realize that the religious control everything in our culture, and you are in no danger.


First of all, it's not my religion, so I really don't care of someone criticizes it at all. In fact, if you actually are familiar with my posting history as you apparently claim to be, then you'll notice that I am frequently in strong agreement with the much-deserved criticism of religious institutions, Christian fundamentalism, and even traditional Christian religious dogma and doctrine. And since I consider all religions to be essentially language games, I don't particular feel threatened if you have a problem with one or all of them.

What I don't like is when people cross the line from rational critique and argumentation to personal degrading, humiliating treatment of those they disagree with and all-or-nothing inflammatory rhetoric. Please note that I am not accusing you of that here. I'm explaining to you what I don't like, and what I've frequently talked about that you mistake for "playing the martyr."

There is also a difference between talking about the state of America and the state of discussion on DU. If and when I ever see some fanatical fundamentalist coming into a discussion board and harassing and attacking an atheist or other non-believer I hope that I am one of the very first to come to the latter person's defense. I don't believe that kind of behavior is called for. However at the same time, when an atheist or other non-believer comes into a discussion board and starts harassing and attacking a believer, I also hope to be one of the very first ones to rise to that believer's defense.


I don't know what denomination you belong to, but I like to use the example of catholics (which I used to be). Even if one is a liberal catholic and disagrees with the church on certain issues, one is STILL supporting the corrupt and decadent power structure of the church by remaining a member of it. If you put a dollar in the collection plate, you're supporting it. If you stay on their rolls, you're supporting it.

I don't belong to any denomination, which is yet another example of one more assumption you've made about me that is in fact, incorrect.

So anyway in summary, you are confusing my willingness to expect and demand basic mutual respect between atheists and theists on DU and in the democratic party with "martyrdom" and confusing that call with an assertion that all religious folk are horribly persecuted, which is something I've never said and don't believe. I do know for a fact that liberal Christians do have it hard and honestly deserve a break from people such as yourself.


...


I know this because I am my fathers son. Let's talk about your claim that you can "assure" me that we are "in no danger."

I watched my father be a protestant minister for 25 years. Not for money - because there was none, not for power because he never had anything but small churches, not for recognition because he got none -- but simply because whether you feel it was misguided or not, my Dad believed it was God leading for his life and how it could best help other people.

Over those 25 years my Dad continued to grow and evolve in his own thinking. He began to disagree with many points of dogma and doctrine and came to believe that nothing matters more than showing love to people and actively living out compassion by meeting the real needs of others around him on a daily basis. He stooped preaching hell fire and brimstone, and stopped arguing about different doctrines and started trying to feed poor people in his town, and meet the needs of people around him.

The result was that he fell into disfavor with the church, but the local church and the church district. Members of the church made up false accusations about my father, and put him on trial. The publicly humiliated my father and my mother over a long period of time. My father had a stroke largely due, according to the doctors, to overwhelming stress.

Eventually the church drove my father out, and left my family on our own. My father had given everything to his ministry and was suddenly without any income and an abundance of debt and health problems. My parents went bankrupt, and I still lived them them on nights when we were eating small cups of rice and wondering where our next meal was going to come from. My dad was broken hearted over all that had happened, and I remember having to hold my 52 year old Dad in my arms on the floor of my parent's bedroom closet as he sobbed uncontrollably. I have never see my dad like that ever before or ever since.

My parents lost their house, lost all of their positions, and were forced to go live with my grandmother in her cramped tiny apartment. My dad is now out of debt, but has next to no money. I send what I can, but it isn't enough. My dad is 57 years old and the only think he knows how to do is be a pastor -- which by HIS definition means to love and counsel is parish and take care of their needs compassionately. Since he can't do that, the only job he can get is cleaning apartments 12 hours a day.

Would you care to revise and extend your remarks about us being "in no danger?" Maybe you should consider taking a big breath and thinking about circumstances such as this before speaking so dismissively?

There is more to my Dad's story - about my dads personal overcoming of these obstacles and his basic joy in living that is so evidenced on his face today. There is the part of the story about how my dad has become even more in love with God - as he understands that - not less because of these experienced and about how my dad as become one of the most beautiful men I have ever known, probably because of all his suffering. The part where, despite really hard times, there has been hope and caretaking too.

What I didn't say about the one night when we were eating a cup of rice with no other food in the house, is that my father went to the door later that night and there on our doorstep were five bags full of gorceries, with an anonymous message thanking my father for being the kind of man he was and promising to stand by him through our hardship. But I don't have time to go into that now.

The point is, give me a break. And deal with the fact that good Christian people DO get persecuted by the organized church. We ought to be on the same side of this issue, instead of getting into a pissing match about which "group" suffers more. Organized Religion is dangerous and it is often destructive. And its targets are ANYONE who challenges their rule or plans or questions their assertions. It doesn't matter if you are an atheist or a liberal Christian, or a person of a different faith.

[benburch]

67. No, you have it exactly reversed.

What I assert is that things for which there is no evidence whatsoever do not exist.

This is not faith, but an operational principle, and applies as well to God as to Werewolves, the Tooth Fairy, or the Keebler Elves.

Surely you would agree that I should not believe in any of those other things without evidence?

But show me a Werewolf, and I will believe. Hell, show me Werewolf spoor and I will even admit that there might be one. The same applies to God.

Until and unless you can present to me the proof, then there is no Werewolf, no Tooth Fairy, and no Keebler Elves. None. Nada. Zip. They don't exist.

Are you now going to tell me that I have no right to assert their nonexistence as an operational fact?

[Selwynn]

99. You cannot know that things for which you have no evidence do not exist.

You can only be said to "know" things for which you have evidence. This is basic scientific method.

You can argue that it is reasonable and in fact appropriate to believe that no god exists based on a continuing lack of evidence. But that is not the same thing as asserting that it is "fact."

[struggle4progress]

60. Whether G-d exists or not really has nothing whatsoever ...

... to do with religion, IMHO.

[benburch]

68. That too!

Even if you could prove the existence of God, there is a wide gulf between that proof and proof that any of the world's religions have any real connection with that entity.

[struggle4progress]

75. I really meant to take a stand in favor of "G-d is dead" theology:

"One afternoon Ernst Bloch and Johannes Baptist Metz were walking the streets of the city of Münster. As their conversation turned to political theology, Bloch pointed to the three iron cages that still hang outside the Saint Lamberti Cathedral. Heretics of the Radical Reformation were executed in those cages and their bodies and bones remained on public display as a warning to dissenters and witness to the triumph of imperial Christendom. 'One must do theology from there,' Bloch said to the Baptist.

Although Bloch's declaration was driven by important political concerns, pragmatic considerations would also lead one to conclude that if theology is to continue as a mode of reflection at the end of this century, it must be conceived after Christendom in creative spaces outside the Cathedral. Both modern statisticians and postmodern theorists agree: the grand temple of Western Christendom can no longer seduce and satisfy the religious imagination nor can its old Constantinian heresy provide an interesting or instructive vision of God in the world. God is dead or eclipsed or exiled."

http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?pid=1046


The existence or nonexistence of G-d is a completely unimportant religious question, IMHO: Ubi caritas et amor, D-s ibi est ...

[papau]

79. religious as in religious question is defined in English as shown below:

pertaining to the belief in and worship of a god or gods, a specific system of belief and worship involving a code of ethics, a value orientation emphasizing spiritual (relating to the spirit or soul and not to physical nature or matter; intangible) peace.

I assume you are talking about peace of your spirit by means of a value orientation where spirit is not of physical nature or matter - and you are saying you do not need a belief in God to obtain this peace.

If true for you, fine. But how does that prove "God is dead"?

[struggle4progress]

100. No, I'm not talking about the peace of my spirit: I fully accept ...

... "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable." Nor should we distinguish too completely the spiritual from the physical.

Have you ever heard the Zen koan "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him"? The prescription against idolatry must extend to include a refusal to engage in the worship of the very worst idols; they are not made of stone or wood but are the dead creations of our own minds that remain fossilized in our psyches and prevent us from living fully and meaningfully. The prescription against taking the name in vain must extend to unimportant theological squabbling about whether or not G-d exists, or whether or not G-d is dead, as if the resolution of those meaningless questions had any real significance, while death grimly frolics in Haiti, Indonesia, Iraq, or Sudan.

As demonic spirits flit across our country, threatening the souls of our countrymen, let us not sit down and argue about definitions.

[papau]

106. prevent us from living fully and meaningfully is"up is down" IMHO

Zen loves to contradict itself -

but I already have quantum theory - so I leave Zen alone

But I like Budda!

[struggle4progress]

134. OK, we can treat Zen is irrelevant, too; I think it has a point ...

but I'm not going to get stuck there. Quantum mechanics is no doubt a wonderful and important subject for certain technical meditations, although it seems to have needlessly generated a great deal of philosophical heat; perhaps we may as well leave it aside, too, at least for the moment.

If you are trying to say that we can and must use our minds to live meaningful lives, I'd agree but I'll insist that idolatrous worship of our own thoughts is a common human fault and that it can keep us from living fully. I don't understand why you consider that an "up is down" statement. Do you object to the fact that I then go further and say that, while I don't consider religion or religious discussion to be idolatrous in all circumstances, I do think that we humans often use religion, or discussion of religion, to hide our own vacuous idolatry from ourselves, as well as from others, and that such misuse of religion defeats the real point of religion, which is to enable people to live more fully and more meaningfully?

[indigobusiness]

76. Science has no quarrel with God

I am a little surprised at someone so well schooled in science would violate a fundamental tenet and assert personal proof of a negative.
---
The most influential scientists of the past were among the strongest believers in God's existence. Geniuses like Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Brahe, Kepler, Faraday, Pasteur etc. had absolute certainty in God's existence, deep reverence for His creative powers, and a total acceptance of His sovereignty.

This site is meant to make available a collection of thoroughly documented quotations from the fathers of science so as to demonstrate, unequivocally, that they held a firm belief in God.

Michael Caputo

Scientist quotes on God
http://michaelcaputo.tripod.com/godandthegreatestscientists/


Summa Theologica I, 2, 3- Does God exist? - Excellent review of established proofs and response to atheists objections.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm

PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.on.net/users/mec/answers/_4_exi.htm (dead link...sorry)

Classical Arguments for the Existence of God
http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/els/tsld004.htm (I post this though I have no truck with Creation Science)

[papau]

80. Excellent - I had forgotten where I had saved those links - thanks

for posting.

In the end it is by faith alone - but I do enjoy those Classical Arguments

[indigobusiness]

85. There is also experiential insight...

that goes beyond faith. There are things cannot be found without being diligently sought. Dues payed.

[papau]

93. true

:-)

[indigobusiness]

90. Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

Does science lead us down a road that ends in the naturalistic explanation of everything we see? In the nineteenth century, it certainly looked as though science was going in that direction. The "God of the gaps" was finding himself in a narrower and narrower niche. However, 20th century and now 21st century science is leading us back down the road of design - not from a lack of scientific explanation, but from scientific explanation that requires an appeal to the extremely unlikely - something that science does not deal well with. As a result of the recent evidence in support of design, many scientists now believe in God. According to a recent article:

"I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."(1)

The degree to which the constants of physics must match a precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of "supernatural plan" or "Agency" behind it. Here is what they say:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

[eallen]

194. If 40% of scientists are believers, and 86% of all Americans...

What does that tell you about the effect of science on belief?

In fact, if you look at scientists who are actually doing research at major institutions, the percentage who believe in a personal god is about 7%. Edward Lawson did a survey on this. Here is the letter that was published in Nature:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

[boomboom]

81. Once again I skimmed....

But I believe I'm right there with you. There is a science that proves the existence of God. And Jesus Christ. It's called Christian apologist. Just means the proof of Christ through physical evidence. I can't figure out why people are so determined to argue their, or mankind's, irrelevance. If their is nothing on earth more than matter....who gives a flip? Why try to do any good works, charity, bettering one's own self, bettering the world, if your goal during this life is a blip in history. Might as well be live like our administration, gather as much wealth on earth as possible. And, then what? Glad I don't have to ultimately answer for at least that.

[Beetwasher]

116. Why? Because It's The Right Thing To Do

Why do you need someone (god or jeusus) to tell you what's right or threaten you with damnation if you don't do it? Your actions are meaningless if you only do them because you think you'll go to hell if you don't. My good actions are more meaningful because I behave that way regardless of any reward or punishment for doing so. I have a highly developed sense of morality that comes from ME and my life experience, not from some external source and that makes it more valid.

What's the point in doing good works if all you have to do is accept Jesus right before you die and then your forgiven anyway? Might as well go out and do whatever the heck you want anyway for your whole life and then repent right before death. Same difference. :shrug:

[codswallop]

123. What does what one needs or doesn't need

have to do with what is or is not?

[Beetwasher]

124. You Tell Me

Or the other poster. Apparently, he thinks morality is not possible w/out religion or god. I don't. For that matter, what makes you think you know what "is" or "is not"?

"I can't figure out why people are so determined to argue their, or mankind's, irrelevance. If their is nothing on earth more than matter....who gives a flip? Why try to do any good works, charity, bettering one's own self, bettering the world, if your goal during this life is a blip in history."

I don't know how you read the above quote, but to me this is essentially saying, what's the point of morality if there's no relevance to life/humanity (IOW, no god, no afterlife, and therefore no meaning/threat/reward and therefore no point in being moral). I make my own relevance. Relevance is not dependent upon an additional external entitity for me.

[trotsky]

118. Einstein believed in God?

Not quite in the way you think.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- A. Einstein

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." -- A. Einstein

[indigobusiness]

127. How do you know what I think?

I never said anything about a "personal" God. Whatever that is. I'm quite familiar with the version of God that Einstein subscribed to.

Those that aren't can learn about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza

more:
http://www.esolibris.com/articles/science/

[trotsky]

129. I know that in this case, you were being deliberately vague.

Lots of scientists believe in god.

Lots don't.

An expert can be fully informed about his or her own field, but when they begin to speak in an area other than their expertise, they are an ordinary person with an opinion no more or less valid than anyone else's.

Unless you think that argumentum ad populum and the appeal to authority are valid debate tactics?

[indigobusiness]

153. Not vague in the slightest.

The point was simply that the issue is legitimate from a scientist's perspective. Vague perceptions are another thing entirely. As is the pretentious use of Latin.

My point is not geared to be right, or to 'win', or...anything so petty. Just an attempt to gird the argument on all sides. Never would I claim that popular belief outweighs relevant material, or is anything more than snobbery...much of the time.

[trotsky]

157. LOL

"Argumentum ad populum" is what the fallacy is called. See http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html. I guess if you're not educated about logical fallacies, it figures you'd think someone using the terminology was being "pretentious."

Hey, I thought you had put me on ignore! Does this mean we're buddies again? :hi:

[indigobusiness]

158. I'm familiar with the term "argumentum ad populum"

your links aren't required but your silliness is compounded by your missing the point of my reference to it. There is more than logical fallacy in "argumentum ad populum" but you would never understand.

How you fell off the ignore list is as curious as how hard you landed when you fell off the turnip truck. I can remedy one.

[trotsky]

168. Aw, and we were so near a breakthrough...

Oh well. You still aren't ready for my wisdom, grasshopper.

[immoderate]

216. Einstein was an atheist.

Einstein did not believe in god any more than he believed that god plays dice.

Einstein's life's work was devoted to finding a scientific theory that would explain everything in the universe. This isn't indicative of an absolute belief in god.

Galileo believed in god just enough to stay off the gallows.

As for the others, suppose some do believe in something supernatural. Scientists have superstitions too.

--IMM

[James T. Kirk]

82. "Before you were born you did not exist in any form." Wrongo!

I actually existed in a form for nine months before I was born!
:P

[indigobusiness]

107. It depends on what your definition on "you" is.

Not to mention what your definition of 'is' is.

[Stunster]

86. My response

:boring:

[supernova]

104. You can only speak out of your experience,

"There is no God." is your statement of what you "believe", your word, to be true. You're just like the rest of us on this planet, iow. You have no specialized, objectifiable knowledge outside of what we all experience.

In fact, you don't know any more about the nonexistance or existance of God than I do.

So, go ahead and don't believe if you wish. Just don't call it fact.

[GOPBasher]

125. As a physics teacher, I'm a big believer in science.

I think science actually does allow for at least a creator god. There are also many concepts being illuminated in modern physics that relate well to the eastern religions -- the unity of all things, for example.

I've also been reading material lately from physics PH.D. Shroeder, who argues that biblical creation actually relates well to the Big Bang.

I don't claim to have all the answers of the universe, but I'm always looking for answers, and I like to see opposing views. Thanks for your side. :-)

By the way, I consider myself a somewhat of a Christian/Buddhist, if that makes any sense. And everying that I believe, I don't hold to be 100% truth; it's just a "belief," as in, "I'm not sure, but I think..."

[indigobusiness]

128. Esoteric and Spiritual Articles - Science and Spirituality

'Dark Matter' - The Physical Basis for Mysticism
by Deno Kazanis, Ph.D.
The recent scientific concept of "dark matter" suggests that we should seriously reconsider the timeless mystical perception of the physical universe.

Quantum Physics with Regard to Spirituality
by Alex Paterson
Alex Paterson examines how Quantum Physics theory accords with spirituality.

The Scientific Basis for Mysticism by Deno Kazanis, Ph.D.
An article by the author of The Reintegration of Science and Spirituality.

Science and Religion by Albert Einstein
Einstein's thoughts on science and religion.

Religion and Science by Albert Einstein
More of Einstein's thoughts on science and religion.

Religion and Science: Irreconcilable? by Albert Einstein
Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science?


http://www.esolibris.com/articles/science/

[indigobusiness]

130. Science's Spiritual Meaning Discussed From An Islamic Viewpoint

The Principle Of Eternity - Science's Spiritual Meaning Discussed From An Islamic Viewpoint

http://7007.homestead.com/Phys_Quatum.html

[MellowOne]

132. You can't prove or disprove God

It's a faith issue.

If God doesn't exist, why are we here? To live then die, and that's it?

What is the point of life? Why try to have a successful life, you're just going to die, lose it all, and it's over.

What gives us more intelligence than animals? Our brains are just flesh and blood.

We have a spirit, that's what's inside us that gives us emotions, intelligence, reasoning, etc. God is a spirit, so we are like God, made in his image.

He gave us spirits so we could make choices. God wants us to choose and love Him because we are His children. God never forces Himself on us, He doesn't want us to be robots. We choose to believe Him, that he exists, and He gives us a life with Him forever.

[Az]

144. Not to be technical but you can't prove anything except math

and of course brewing. Proof in the sense that you are suggesting is beyond our means. People really have to learn to stop using that word. You can show evidence and provide theories that suggest the best possible guess. But we are always open to new evidence that may overturn our theories. Thats just the nature of our ability to know things.

We cannot prove things to an absolute.

We can demonstrate that a claim is false. So while we can refute claims this does not give us the ability to prove anything positive. Thus a particular claim for the existance of god may be demonstrably false. But this does not eliminate all possible claims for god. This is simply the nature of the god of the gaps notion. Namely that god is whatever we have not figured out just yet.

[MellowOne]

151. Millions of things can be proven

I can prove I'm alive, there's electricity, Bush and Condi lied, the list goes on and on.

My point is that we do exist after we die to illustrate that God does exist. Our bodies die but our spirits enter into the spiritual realm. God is spirit, we are spirit. Our earthly body decays but our spirits live on. If you believe the Bible, then you know the spiritual realm exsits.

You could die today. What's the point of your life, why were you here? Could our temporary stay on earth be a way for God to know who really loves Him? When we choose to follow God does He reward us with an life that goes on forever in Heaven with Him?

When we face God, He will ask us just ONE question: Did you accept Jesus as your savior. No one can come to the Father but through the Son. The Bible makes the point very clear.

[indigobusiness]

155. Maybe so:

No one can come to the Father but through the Son.

But exactly what that fully means can be endlessly debated. Much like the nature, meaning and definition of God.

[MellowOne]

160. You've heard it a thousand times

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is saved, and he who does not believe in Him is condemened already. John 3:16-18

God requires a blood sacrifice for sin according to the Jewish Law given to Moses by God. Priests preformed sacrifices of perfect animals in the temple to cover sins. Only the priest could enter into the Holy of Holies to sacrifice the blood. Jesus is our perfect sacrifical lamb. He died, shed his blood for all the sins of mankind.
When Jesus died, mysteriously, the veil in the Holy of Holies was torn into. An animal sacrifice was no longer required. We now have Jesus for our atonement. His blood covers our sins once we make a commitment to Him. We are under His grace, we still make mistakes but our sins are covered. To come to the Father, you have to be perfect without sin. Only through Jesus' perfect life and sacrifice, which is given to us as a free gift, can we enter into the Father's presence.

We can never live up to the perfection God requires. Because Jesus lived a perfect life, we can claim it as our own.

[codswallop]

163. That's wildly romantic

...whatever rocks your boat.

The meaning behind that romantic conception is complex and multilayered and ranges far beyond literalism. It is beyond me how anyone who believes in God would subscribe to exclusive notions.

[MellowOne]

164. It's straight out of the Bible

And it doesn't rock my boat. It gives me great comfort and peace.

God doesn't force Himself on anyone. You have a freewill to believe whatever you wish. But He made it very easy to love Him.

[codswallop]

165. I'm not saying you're wrong. But the context limits the message.

Careful with partial dogmatic references. There are warnings against that...straight out of the Bible.

[MellowOne]

166. I don't understand you

You point out things that have nothing to do with the meaning of the post.

Itis a quote from the Bible. The meaning can be studied and examined for yourself. Does that work for you?

[Az]

172. A detailed response

You can prove abstract constructs such as math. You can prove there are no square circles. You can prove there are no married bachelors. Because we create the abstract definition of the conditions we can thus define whether such things can be excluded within the logical definitions we create. But prove there are no unicorns in the universe and you have a problem.

Proving you are alive merely is applying our definition of alive (which is actually a bit problematic). It is again applying an abstract consrtuct as a definition of what you are proving.

As to your point about existing after we die... it would certainly be nice to think so. But to date there is no evidence that a mind can exist without a functioning brain. They seem to be irrevocably tied together.

It is more than just the existance of the mind that is tied to the brain. It is the very nature of the identity that is tied to the brain. We can change who you are, we can change your memories, we can change your attitudes and beliefs by altering the brain.

The notion that the mind is somehow something other that the brain would demand that any changes to the brain would have no effect on your memories, identity, or beliefs. And yet there are miriad of cases of people recieving head wounds and being altered drastically from their previous nature.

The notion that we survive death creates a very dangerous situation. Any belief system that creates this particular concept usurps our own natural tendency to seek preservation. By creating the belief that our identity and existance continue beyond death based on belief in its particular credes takes our own drive to survive and applies it to defending the beliefs instead.

People will willingly die to defend such a belief. For death has had its meaning to our species taken away by the belief system. In this way martyrs can be made to withstand brutal opposition. Others can be made to turn themself into human bombs and missiles.

The belief in an afterlife also enables a belief system to turn love and compassion on its head as well. When death has no meaning and only adherance to the rules of belief have any real depth of consequence our natural feelings of connection with our fellow humans can drive us to attempt to save a person's immortal soul at the cost of some temporal pain and suffering. The inquisition was the result of such a twisting of life. The Jews were being saved from themselves. It was compassion that drove the torture. It was the promise of salvation that drove the crusades.

You seem to be seeking a prescribed meaning to life. Many have sought this. Not all have agreed. Perhaps there is no meaning to life other than what you make of it. What happens if you die and find out that the meaning of life was that you were the divine equivalent of a fish in the bowl? Will this give you satisfaction?

Your religion itself claims you cannot know the mind of God. Then who are you to presume that you have any incling about what the meaning of your life is? You have already abdocated the right to decide what life means to you. You have given it up to something else that you believe has the authority to proclaim meaning. And what if it does not fit your hopes and dreams?

Consider this. What will eternity mean to you? How many times will you perform the same actions over and over again. Eternity is not just a long time. It is eternity. Eventually you will do everything an infinite number of times. Bored is not the word that comes to mind.

Add to the problem that there is no drive. No need. There are no threats or issues to resolve. There is no reason to move. There is no reason to be.

You want meaning to life. You need only reach out and define it as you choose to. For me life is about exploring the nature of the universe. Understanding the nature of the mind. Teaching the things I find to those around me and hoping that I make a difference in the path this world is set upon. When I am dead I will be no more. But the ideas and words I speak echo amongst those I care about. I have already lived long enough to see some of my words come back to me from afar. If not as the source of these ideas then shared with others that came to the same conclusions. This has meaning to me. I am afraid you must find your own and not be dependent on others to define your life for you be they gods or not. Its your life. You make it what you wish it to be.

[moobu2]

176. Excellent points

As individuals, we humans could live much more fulfilling lives if from an early age we tried to fully understand and be aware that we only exist because of neurological brain structure. Perhaps though, from a social stand point, belief in an after life works better at holding communities together (for reasons to many and complicated to go into).

Some people get this hopeless attitude when discussing this and say stuff like "well what's the point in living then?") but that attitude only comes from what they've been taught to believe about their existence. They've been taught to depend on living after the body dies so of coarse they would find it emotionaly disorientating to realize that wasnt true.

[indigobusiness]

185. If you find meaning in semantic silliness, maybe.

This is all absolute nonsense. As exemplified throughout this entire thread by the various attributes applied to seminal terms. "There is no God": as if there is a consensus understanding of the term or concept of "God". This thread had potential but quickly degenerated into pontificated, dogmatic, semantic nonsense.

Some of the more astute arguments provided windows of opportunity for productive argument, but lost traction in the over-revving of egos... (How's that for mixed metaphors??? Keep in mind: IT'S ALL METAPHOR). More's the pity. It is hilarious to observe opinions on this topic expressed with certainty. The vainity of that alone is a hoot. That makes this thread worthwhile, if nothing else.

What a load.

[SlackJawedYokel]

154. There is a god.

I keep him in my shirt pocket and I'll let you see him if you are careful.
He is very fragile these days.

Mostly he complains about his joints and the temperature.

Why does what I know to be true threaten you in your faith?
Because people have to care about *something* so as to not get bored with life.

Cletus

[mojaverose]

159. Definition Of An Atheist

Somebody who doesn't believe in the God he's been taught. I'm right there with you, Buddy. That god that religion pushes Is a nightmare. Thank God it isn't true.

[MellowOne]

161. Ghandi said it best

To paraphrase: The Jesus of the Christians we come to hate, if we knew the Jesus of the Bible, we would come to love Him.

[catbert836]

167. Since you're a believer in Science

and whatever it teaches, then how can you also accept proof of a negative? That is totally hypocritical, I'm sorry.

[Az]

173. I believe he said he believed there was no god

He further stated that science seems to be able to explain the nature of the universe without a god and that the existance of god in this universe is not necissary.

His insistance that there is no god is merely his statement of belief. Just as some believe uncontrovertably that there is a god there are those that believe there is no god. As both sides are fairly well entrenched in the battle I do not forsee a definitive win for either side. Science and reason continue to explain the universe in excellent detail. Meanwhile advocats of god continue to find matters that science has not yet fully explained and proclaim that proof of god.

[eallen]

175. It's a complete myth that negative statements generally are beyond proof.

There are plenty of negative statements that we can prove, both in the rigorous mathematical sense, and in the looser scientific sense. Here's an example of the first: there are no even primes greater than two. Here is an example of the second: there are no mammal species that manufacture cellulose.

And what is a negative anyway? Which of the following statements is a negative? And why?

(1) All men are mortal.

(2) No one lives forever.

[Az]

177. Abstract constructs

Yes there are plenty of logically true negative claims. But they are all based on abstract constructs and our own definitions of claims.

The claim that you cannot prove a negative has to do with none abstract consrtucts. You cannot prove things such as there are no smurfs.

There are a wide number of things that we define in our daily life that can give us tools to prove negatives. But only within the confines of our defining terms.

[SlackJawedYokel]

178. I don't understand this claim...

You cannot prove things such as there are no smurfs.
Blasphemy aside, sure we can.
We *know* Smurfs are fictional characters created by some particular individual(s).
We can track this down quite easily.
How is this not "proof"?
Ok, it is *evidence* to be precise, but why can't this translate to a mathematical/logical "proof".

Seriously, I'm trying to figure out why this won't work.
Could some Philosophy authority please explain this for me?

Because, IMO, this is the exact same kind of evidence that humanity creates its gods... we just can't be as specific about *who* created them.

Cletus

[Az]

181. The trouble with smurfs

To prove there are no smurfs you would have to search the entire universe. You would have to be able to ascertain that the smurfs were not hiding from you. You would have to demonstrate that there are not other universes in which they could be hiding. This is an unsurmountable task.

The problem is in the absolute nature of proof. You can demonstrate there is a very high degree of certainty that smurfs do not exist. But to raise it to absolute proof is beyond our capability.

[eallen]

184. Electrons are no different in that regard.

Physics says that the path an electron takes will bend in a certain fashion as it passes through a magnetic field. But we have observed only a very, very minute fraction of all the electrons in the universe. Perhaps in some of the other galaxies, they behave differently. You're no longer pointing to a problem with negative statements, but to a problem with any kind of inductive reasoning.

[Az]

197. There is a specific difference between reality and theory

And yes it is an issue with inductive reasoning. If we do not understand and embrace this issue we will become victims of it. Science and empiricism are dependent on accepting that the world we see before us is true. This is made problematic by solipsistic claims. If instead we are just brains in vats being fed false information pertaining to the universe then all our theories and notions are for naught. The best we can do is make a faith based statement and presume that this is the universe we have before us and proceed with the information we gather from it.

That being said we must face the fact that our observations are potentially flawed. This is why science must remain forever open. We cannot know that a theory is absolutely proven to be true. We can only ascertain that it has been proven to a sufficient degree that to deny it would be ridiculous. But if apples started floating tomorrow we would have to throw out all of our claims and theories and study the new information presented to us. It is simply the nature of the process we have available.

Thus in this context we can make absolute claims about abstract constructs that we create. Definitions. Terms. Imaginary universes. All these can have absolute resolutions. But the real world is beyond our ability to define in the absolute. We can come close. We may even be right. But the leap from high degree of certainty to absolute certainty is beyond our reach.

[eallen]

198. What does that have to do with negative statements?

If you're argument is that no empirical statement is certain... well, I agree! This particular subthead started when someone said you can't prove a negative. I pointed out this is mostly poppycock, that many negatives are proved. Now yeah, obviously, "prove" means something different for an empirical claim than for a mathematical one. You seem to be harping on that. You'll get no argument from me!

[Az]

199. Its a question of the context

In dealing with proving the absense of god we are constrained from doing so with no offer of god being presented. The real problem comes from misunderstanding the flow of logic. With no claim of god being presented no argument can be presented to refute it. Thus you cannot prove an independent negative. Arguments against god must be set against the claim given for god. God is the positive claim and the burden of providing evidence resides in their camp. In the absense of a claim for god there is no claim for god thus the default position in a logical debate is for no claims for god. You cannot argue for the absense of a claim.

[SlackJawedYokel]

207. Ok, *that* one I figured out.

Begin with "the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion that god(s) exist", ask them to specifically define their god(s) and substantiate the atheist position with examples of human constructed god(s), historical documents detailing the evolution of the Judeo-Christian god(since this is the most relevant) and wait for the evidence that doesn't conflate nature with their god(s).

Cletus

[SlackJawedYokel]

206. But we *know* Smurfs are fictional!

Why would we have to look, *anywhere*?
We know with absolute certainity that Smurfs are fictional characters created for a cartoon.

I'm not getting why searching the universe is necessary.
And let's say that on Omicron Persei VI there exist some alien creature that *exactly* resembles Smurfs in every conceivable way.
They couldn't possibly *be* Smurfs because Smurfs are fictional blue elves that speak English substituting the words smurf to humorous effect.

That would be like saying I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist... or the Easter Bunny...

Wouldn't it?
Please, someone explain why I'm wrong.

Cletus

[eallen]

179. You ignored the scientific example I gave.

We have not identified all mammalian species, yet I feel quite confident in predicting, from our knowledge of the evolutionary tree, that we'll never find a mammal that produces cellulose (except perhaps ones in the future that we genetically engineer to do so). Now, like all scientific claims, that lacks the certainty of mathematical proof. All scientific theories are at risk of refutation.

Here's another example: There are no solar systems whose planets have square orbits.

Or here's another example: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. That is a negative statement derived from the fundamental claims of quantum mechanics.

You can always argue that GR & QM will be proved wrong. But these negative statements are no weaker than the positive statements that derive from our knowledge of physics. It's easy to derive negative statements from any scientific theory: GR, QM, evolution, etc.

[Az]

180. Nature does not follow our labeling

Evolution did not decide to come up with the appelation mammal. It is one applied by us and defined by us. It is contrived of observations of similarities we have found in many different animals and like math follows our definitions. It is a useful tool for understanding nature but as science must remain open ended we cannot come to an absolute proof of the statement. Thus proof eludes us.

As to the uncertaintly principal again we are dealing with the abstract construct called math here. From the claim of quantum mechanics it is true you can use the existing understanding to define the terms. But in the end their application to real world scenarios requires they be open ended in nature and subject to change in the event of new evidence. Thus unprovable in the real sense of the word.

[eallen]

183. Those objections apply to ANY scientific claim, positive or negative.

Yes, of course, scientific claims will be expressed using language that people have defined. Yes, of course, scientific theories are subject to change as new evidence arises.

Those objections have nothing to do with whether a claim is positive or negative, but apply equally to any scientific theory. You no longer seem to be objecting that we can't prove a negative, but that we can't prove science. And you're correct, at least, not in the sense that we prove mathematics, and never with that kind of finality.

But that has nothing to do with negative statements vs. positive statements.

[Az]

203. My position has never been that you cannot prove a negative

Rather that it is specific forms of negatives that cannot be proven. Specifically whether whether a specific individual does not exist. If I ask you to prove smurfs do not exist you will find it quite difficult to demonstrate that they do not if not down right impossible.

We simply have no means to prove that some things do not exist. This of course does not mean that they do exist. The burden to prove they exist still lies upon the shoulders of those claiming they do exist. So do you claim that smurfs exist? If so provide the evidence and then we can accept or refute it. That is simply the process by which we must travel.

[indigobusiness]

186. "There is no God" is like proclaiming the limited value of piano

by a man who won't be bothered to learned to play.

[Az]

204. Or it could be a person's honest opinion

Some people don't like piano music. Some people believe there are no gods. Perhaps we should allow the people that do not like piano music to not have to be subjected to piano music.

[indigobusiness]

209. That's not the point.

Realms of understanding are realized by those who diligently work at attaining them, and forever unknown to those who aren't.

We are all subjected to the same reality. The depth of our perception of that reality is only limited by our willingness to dig.
Knock, and doors will open where none were perceived to exist.

Science is the prose, Religion the poetry, of the same story.

[Az]

210. Apt descriptions

But remember some people prefer minimalism. Some prefer baroque. Poetry need not concern itself with accuracy. It only need concern itself with conveying an idea or message to others.

I am troubled by the seeming implication that those that reject mystical explanations without convincing evidence are somehow not digging. Forgive me if this was not the intent of your comment.

I agree that we are observing the same world. I also support the notion that there are ways to gain understanding other than purely scientific avenues. But I will defend the notion that the conclusions drawn by scientific avenues will over time prove to be superior to those drawn by others in terms of accuracy if perhap not peronal meaning.

That is the critical issue in this (IMO). The answers that mystical internal constructions answer appeal to the emotional aspects of our mind. And since this is essentially how we form our view of the world these are always going to hold more import for us at a personal level.

But science as a method dismisses the emotional appeal and instead attempts to focus on the actuality of a matter as best as it can. Instead of seeking an internal understanding of identity it merely examines what is before it and seeks an explanation.

This is not to dismiss the internal path. It has value for many. But without in some way touching upon the scientific method it is without a rudder. It is adrift in a sea it can never traverse without some form of guidance. The scenary may be amazing but the goal will forever be elusive.

Consider an important observation about Taoism. The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao. This is because each person takes the teachings of any philosophy and makes it their own. No one envisions the same ideas as another. Thus what is the Tao to you is not the same to another. This is because the meaning and impact of the teachings will appeal to different internalized ideas already present in each of us.

There are going to be major themes the crop up within such explorations. Major truths and such. But as we are all observing the same world this is to be expected. The major themes will be similar. But the nuance and the personal experience of it will be unique to each person.

[indigobusiness]

213. Your assertions are always off the mark.

The context is not a psychological one. It is independent of human attitudes. Learning to play the piano is a form of digging to open something closed. It is a perfect example of those unwilling to make an effort to understand God concept. They are unschooled in the theory and practice and cannot expect to begin to understand the realm.

Your assertion of the Tao is a colossal misrepresentation:

Consider an important observation about Taoism. The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao. This is because each person takes the teachings of any philosophy and makes it their own. No one envisions the same ideas as another. Thus what is the Tao to you is not the same to another. This is because the meaning and impact of the teachings will appeal to different internalized ideas already present in each of us.

Wrong!

The Tao can not be told because it is ineffable, and it is antithetical to pretend that it could be shaped into some tidy personal package. No Taoist would ever assert that. That is the stuff of delusion, not wisdom. The Tao is ineffable and immutable.

You will never know what it is, you can hope to recognize what it isn't.

If you think you know the Tao, you don't know. One who knows he doesn't know, knows. That is Taoism.

[Az]

214. Never claimed to know the Tao

Merely claimed how each individual approaches their way. Each of us percieve our own particular aspect of the Tao. Each try to understand what it is they can grasp. Thus to another theirs is not the same.

As to your claim of those that reject God being unschooled. That is rather presumptive. Any construct created by the mind is going to have vast implications within it. Like a fractal from a simple concept can come tremendous potential. Whether this construct has any bearing on reality is the key to why some reject the claim or not.

Just because some have found meaning and import in their particular search for God does not mean that their path has any validity outside their own personal drives. Just because the utility of a belief in God has meaning to some does not mean there is an emperical reality to God.

[indigobusiness]

215. You make assertions about the Tao and call it many things.

We don't perceive individual aspects of the Tao. There are no individual aspects, only individual levels of unknowing.

Any deep understanding requires due diligence. I was in no way being presumptive. Playing the piano comes more easily to some. Savants, the most easily. For most, virtuosity, or the slightest meaningful opinion of any hidden realm can not be arrived at casually. That was the simple point in my example.

The issue is not about the right to reject or place specific forms of measurement on the definition of reality or of God, the real presumption is by those who would deny the macroscopic reality while refusing to look into the macroscope.

[Az]

217. Not a question of denying macro aspects

Its a question of various individuals finding validity in different paths of macro explanations. Each path forms its own detailed explanations. Each vision has layers and depths far beyond a simple that which can be glimpsed in a mere glance. The trouble is that not all draw valid conclusions within their constructs.

Yes to those that embrace the view that there is a God there are going to be profound and meaningful insites derived from this notion. They are obviously going to be far removed from the path of those that take a different view of the world. But it does not mean that their path is less enlightened. It also does not mean that the God path is anymore accurate in explaining reality.

A valid and functioning world view can be struck from many paths. History has shown us this. Varying levels of harmony and stress have acompanied all such paths. Some have survived many have been left to atrophy with none following their teachings any longer. The thing that most have in common is that all have been held as deeply meaningful by those that embraced them.

What we can learn from this is that while there is no indication that any of these paths were and absolute truth or not they had meaning to their adherants. To presume that they were fools or delusionary oddities is presumptive on our part. Instead we should accept that on the whole this is a natural process of internalizing our environment. We create constructs to explain the world around us. These constructs are not reality but rather models of how we percieve reality. And within these constructs we conduct internal experiments and conjectures attempting to sort out the nature of reality.

But the trouble is that many forget that it is the model they are sorting. It is the internalized imagining of how things are. And if there is no continual process of updating that perception then it may well be flawed from a reality based perspective.

So as one further develops this internalized view of the world around them they will experience a sense of empowerment from their believed understanding of the world. It may be very functional in the real world and still be diconnected from it. The fact is it is still just an internalized vision of reality.

[indigobusiness]

219. Not macroaspects.

Macroreality.

Wholistic reality. The fullblown, wholehog, comprehensive shooting match.

There is nothing about reality that is dependent on human perception, or even human existence. Much less human belief. It is what it is. You are hung up on a limited slice of reality. "Validity"? What is that? Some sort of judgment scale of Truth? That is outright hogwash. This is not some organic thing to be embraced for pacification. This is about understanding the fullness of beingness and becomingness...and ulitmately no thingness. It is not essentially emotional or psychological.

The tools available to us are taken for granted by fools and egotists.

Leave delusion and individuals out of it, and you have a chance to build a foundation of understanding. Otherwise, you are chasing your tail.

[Az]

220. I think we are missing each other's points

I am saying that we form our understanding of the world around us in our heads. We create constructs of what we believe the world to be within our imagination. It is this that we manipulate and contemplate upon. We do not have the ability to directly know the nature of anything other than that.

You claim that the goal is to understand a particular view of the nature of existance is valid within its particular venue. Whether its claims are valid to other views is dependent on if they find shared value in your concepts and whether it has enough explanation for reality to find common bond.

Proclaiming one view the correct view is where the trouble comes into play. Yes there is a truth out there, but seldom are those who proclaim to know it the ones that do.

There are many ways to build a foundation. And yes some are better than others. It will be interesting to see in time which particular foundation creates a better structure. As yet I see no reason to proclaim one superior to another.

[indigobusiness]

223. And I keep telling you that is beside the point.

What is, is. The answers are in the questions. I don't make the claims you ascribe to me.

I never:

You claim that the goal is to understand a particular view of the nature of existance is valid within its particular venue. Whether its claims are valid to other views is dependent on if they find shared value in your concepts and whether it has enough explanation for reality to find common bond.

I'm saying we can plumb the depths of fundamental meaning, but never measure them in ways that satisfy the strictures of Science.

I'm not interested in carving out a point of view that I try to defend, as you seem to be doing. Pontification is for the Pope. I'm trying to diagram the context of the issue to form an approach to a meaningful dialog. I'm not interested in opinion or dogma. It is about asking significant questions to further a meaningful dialog, not egotistical proclamations or judgemental rhetoric such as "correct views" or "validity".

You ignore my points and insist that psychology is important here. It is not. Philosophical debate can be rigorously logical if given a chance. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I know bullshit when I see it.

That's it for me...I'm out of here.

[Az]

226. I am a tad confused here

I am looking back over your statements and I don't see you asking questions. I am all for meaningfull dialog and interesting questions. If that is what you seek to bring to the conversation I am all for it.

But you seem to be equally set on describing the processes of others as you claim I am. You entered this particular branch with a dismissive claim about another's approach to understanding the world. While I can certainly understand that it may not be your way it might work for them. Could not your point have been posed as a question rather than the demeaning comment it was?

[indigobusiness]

227. Not "interesting" questions...significant questions.

I am disparaging your instance at refusing to frame the issue meaningfully. So far there has been nothing but squabbling.

This shouldn't be an effort at rationalizing the world. Logic begins with a known and expands incrementally, point by point. It isn't convenient rationalization. The asking of questions can't really begin until the context and thrust of the discussion is established.

The point is that a questioning attitude is that of the true seeker. Assertion and proclamation characterize the dogmatist: one who has no chance of finding. So far, much of this has just been a meaningless circular argument. The issue deserves respect. It's not petty or personal or superficial, and not something to be toyed with or treated lightly and without respect. The insistent personalizing and dwelling on vanity has caused me to lose all interest.

[Az]

228. My instance?

This is not my thread. Or are you lumping all atheists in together as one gestalt?

Are you aslo suggesting that some do not derive satisfaction from working to understand the world in rational terms? Perhaps the notion that one should not seak such things does not apply the same to everyone.

I will agree that the conversation often does turn to petty and vanity posts. I strive to keep them from doing so in my own way. It certainly does deserve respect. The notion of gods and such have been around for a very long time. I do not believe that atheists by any means are particularly gifted (having met some rather thick ones myself). But I am bothered a bit by the dismissive attitude of some that presume that an atheist has done no pondering or deep thinking about the matter. To relegate us to some dustbin because we don't happen to use the same path as others seems a bit close minded and perhaps not the best way to explore the world in an open manner.

So how would you include atheists in the exploration? Or would you simply dismiss us without a second thought? Is there a way to bring about a dialog between such communities? Or is discord the only thing that can persist between us?

[indigobusiness]

229. I butchered the word

"insistence".

Atheists, believers, anyone who doesn't bring anything constructive to the discussion.

Meaning is never discovered through facile gibberish.

There are very interesting and productive atheist arguments in the larger record of this debate. Not on this thread, though.

The debate is futile without a worthy foil. The hangup seems to be in judging the metaphors before they are understood. The concepts are corrupted and useless.

[Az]

232. Metaphors

I am more than willing to entertain the notion of gods and how they exist as metaphors for something internal to us. But I don't see the bulk of claimants concerning God suggesting that God is just a metaphor. They are quite clear that it is a person, an entity, that takes action in their lives.

My approach is that there is something going on here but it is not what they believe it to be. This does not mean we dismiss their observations. Rather we examine them and see what implications they may have when combined with other aspects of the mind and existance we can come up with.

If you wish to argue that God is a metaphore you will have no argument from me. If you wish to suggest that God is a usefull concept then again I will not deny that it has utility. I am more than open to explore such conditions. Others may take issue with it but that is each individuals choice.

Here is a question for you though. How would you guide a conversation such as this into a more productive path? I trust we both wish for such discussions to be more productive rather than just egocentric and trading or barbs.

[SlackJawedYokel]

208. Coming from folks

who are telling me they are playing a piano I can't see or touch or experience in any way, shape or form... I'm not seeing how the "piano players" are more convincing.
The Emperor really was nekkid, you know. :D

Cletus

[indigobusiness]

211. Now THAT is a mix of metaphors.

Maybe you can't "see" the piano because you haven't bothered to earn your eyes?

Perhaps this Emperor is not nekkid but cloaked in perfect transparency?

[SlackJawedYokel]

222. Thanks. :D

Maybe you can't "see" the piano because you haven't bothered to earn your eyes?
"Earn" your eyes?
Sorry, but I thought we were discussing some aspect of reality.
Which "eyes" would those be, exactly, and how are they discernible from normal eyes?
Oh, and how would one "earn" them.
Thanks.

Perhaps this Emperor is not nekkid but cloaked in perfect transparency?
Umm... transparent clothes are still clothes.
Nekkid, by definition, means one is not wearing any clothes... transparent or not.

Cletus

[indigobusiness]

224. And here I thought

we were mixing metaphors.

[FM Arouet666]

218. Patently obvious to the most casual non observer.

Unless, of course, you are fueled by faith. I support what you have said, and agree, you will be attacked to no end. Mmmmmm, dog for dinner.:+

Why believe in a god, and deny the divinity of the easter bunny, Santa Claus, frosty the snow man and sponge bob. Oops, late breaking news, sponge bob is gay, therefore he cannot be divine. Silly little sponge. :evilgrin:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

231. "...but God"

Hey, friend, believe as you will. Go in peace. I am not threatened by your ideas.

My concept is a tad different-as evidenced by my subject line. :)

[Behind the Aegis]

233. Prove it!

just kidding! :)

Personally, I don't care if you believe or not; as long as you don't tell me I have to stop believing. I don't believe religion has ANY place in government or schools (except religion classes and mythology). Your "disbelief" has no effect on my "beliefs," nor should it. I am secure in what I believe and feel. That is one of the things I always find interesting about the right-wing Christians (et al). Anyone who doesn't think or believe the way they do is a direct attack...sounds to be that their faith is not very strong at all!

If you have chosen not to believe in G-d, then that is okie-dokie by me! The only beef I have is that some atheists feel intellectually superior to us "myth fans." I think this is as silly and stupid as the religious zealots that feel they are morally superior to atheists.

I must say, I can't believe that this thread is not filled with "deleted message" messages! I think that is GREAT!

[youngred]

234. doesn't threaten me

you're fully entitled to your opinion and spiritual (dis)beliefs.

[Selwynn]

235. If we're going to dig up this thread, then lets repeat the scientism post

Stuntster:
Most of the atheists I've personally encountered have been imbued with either an explicit or an implicit belief in scientism--roughly the view that the only possible valid forms of knowledge or rationally warranted belief are those yielded by the methods of the natural sciences; and that the only real entities are those which are posited by the natural sciences. Scientism is not itself science, and it's not proven or provable by science. It's a philosophical worldview. There are many strong philosophical arguments against scientism, and most of the atheists I've encountered have not been familiar with or particularly good at understanding the philosophical critique of scientism.

Scientism says, "science is the only way of obtaining true knowledge of reality." This statement, however, cannot itself be verified by the methods of science. So the first problem is scientism's self-referential incoherence. The statement of scientism is not itself a scientific statement. Its claim that the only way to arrive at true knowledge is through empirically verifiable procedures involving sensory perception cannot itself be verified through empirically verifiable procedures involving sensory perception.

The next problem is that scientism commits the logical fallacy of 'petitio principii', commonly known as 'begging the question'. It is like a blind man who claims that only through hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling can one know anything for certain about the world. Using only his four senses, though, he obviously cannot prove that there is no fifth sense--the sense of sight. Well, suppose there is a way of knowing reality, or some aspect of it, which is non-sensory or not amenable to the methods of the natural sciences, perhaps because it involves a non-physical reality. One couldn't establish that there wasn't such a non-sensory way of knowing or such a non-sensorily detectable reality, by showing that it could not be detected by the senses. That would be like a (bad) mathematician who claimed there was no number greater than 100 because his calculator only went up to 100.

The next problem is that scientism has too narrow a conception of experience for which it then fails to provide adequate warrant. Sensory experience is far from being the only kind of experience we have. We also commonly have moral experience, aesthetic experience, and the experience of rational thinking. Scientism epistemologically privileges sensory experience. But that privileging is not itself justified by anything we sense. Just from having sensory experiences one couldn't prove that sensory experience ought to be given epistemological privileges over other types of experience.

It might be objected that it is justified, because sensory experiences we have had before tend to be repeated under appropriately controlled conditions. This, of course, is inductive reasoning. But notoriously, Hume showed that there is no way to justify inductive reasoning on the basis of past sense-perception without circularity. Just because the chicken has always been fed at 9am every day up till now, doesn't justify the chicken in thinking that today, the farmer won't ring its neck. Analogously, just because inductive reasoning has served us well in the past doesn't prove that it's going to serve us well in future---unless you are already assuming the validity of inductive reasoning. The problem of induction is a large topic in philosophy of science, and scientism just naively ignores it, or assumes the problem away. (Hume's account itself, however, is not without problems of circularity, since he uses causation to explain induction, and induction to explain causation).

But of course, even if we ought to privilege inductive reasoning on pragmatic grounds, this tells us nothing about the nature of the realities which inductive reasoning invites us to posit. For example, we see an apple fall from a tree, and by a process of inductive reason, arrive at a law of gravity. But there is also the common experience of having thought, in the past, that something was morally wrong, and then concluding that the same type of thing will be morally wrong in the future. And while knowing about gravity can certainly be useful, so, surely, is knowing about morality. There is nothing in the inductive reasoning, per se, that dictates a scientistic ontology or a scientistic epistemology. Doing controlled experiments, in other words, is useful to the extent that we're interested in the information such experiments might yield. But if we have important interests which those kinds of experiment will not yield useful information, then they are to that extent not useful. Utility, and 'working', is always relative to our goals, our ends, our purposes, interests, and desires. And these may include a great deal or even be dominated by dimensions of experience which do not lend themselves to quantitative measurement or physical investigation. Some people find the benefits of technology highly enjoyable. Others find them thoroughly alienating, or, if not alienating as such, at least radically insufficient to attaining the goal of happiness. Technological benefits, in other words, may not 'work' for those people. We are familiar with the true life stories of people who 'had it all', but were in states of such profound psychological distress that they took their own lives.

But perhaps the biggest challenge to scientism now is the New Mysterian position recently developed in the philosophy of mind. That's another huge topic in philosophy of mind. The New Mysterians say that science, and human cognition more generally, is intrinsically and forever incapable of solving what Chalmers has called 'the Hard Problem of Consciousness. But rather than give up on materialism, they say that even though consciousness can't be fitted into a materialistic worldview, we should just have faith that materialism is true anyway. Naturally, theists find such a position amusingly ironic.

Thankfully not all atheists are philosophically naive adherents of scientism. There are non-scientistic versions of naturalism which are not as vulnerable to criticism as scientism is. With these people it's possible to have interesting and fruitful discussions about the nature and origins of life, consciousness, reason, morality, meaning, and the apparently fine-tuned structure of what Brian Greene has called The Elegant Universe. When these sorts of atheists say that they find no evidence for theism, I do scratch my head a bit, since to my way of thinking, evidence for theism is fairly readily apparent if you're prepared to define evidence in a non-scientistic way.

It strikes me at any rate that all the phenomena associated with reason and with value, as well as the intelligibility and order of the physical universe, are such as to suggest an 'inference to best explanation' type of reasoning (what the American philosopher C. S. Peirce called 'abductive inference') that quite naturally posits the theistic hypothesis as the best candidate explanation. And if it's ok for physicists to abductively infer such intrinsically invisible theoretical entities as the electromagnetic field, or curved space, or even the invisible laws of physics themselves to explain electromagnetic, gravitational and other physical phenomena, then I don't see any great difficulty in principle in abductively inferring, as the ultimate reality or ground of being, a physically invisible, mind-like, rational, moral consciousness, and then comparing this hypothesis with competing hypotheses which offer alternative explanations of the same phenomena (such as materialist, or Platonic explanations).

I often think that some atheists are operating with a concept of God which is not one that I, as a theist, would regard as adequate for my own thinking about God. And so I find myself saying, well, if that's what you mean by the term 'God', then I don't believe in that 'God' either. When we talk about, and more importantly experience Reason, or Goodness, I personally find it literally incredible that these phenomena can have arisen, or be adequately explained, on the basis of chance movements of impersonal matter-energy, and am immediately disposed to think that Reason and Goodness must be ontologically ultimate in some way. And I guess I just don't see what's so hard to accept about that. And since we never encounter reason and value phenomena independently of mind, then I hypothesize as a reasonable explanation thereof, that the rational moral minds we are familiar with must bear some relationship of analogy to that ontological ultimate Reason/Goodness.

[youngred]

241. why?

praytell?

[Selwynn]

242. Because the difference between actual science and scientism matters.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

239. Well, my flamebaiting friend, allow me to be equally blunt.

I disagree. I am convinced there is indeed a God. All that I have seen convinces me. I'll never be able to convince you, but I'll leave you this nugget to ponder:

If there's no God, then how did you come to be? You said science proves thhat there is no God. Explain.

[Tux]

240. Science can't prove or disprove god

To do that, we'd have to grab god and slap it under a microscope, run medical tests, and have it fill out a survey. That can't be done. God is hiding. Considering how people act, I don't blame it. God is one of those things that we can "know" is there but can't prove it. Nor disprove it. The universe can support any view thrown at it. Best thing to do is live with others the best we can and stop argueing over things that can't be proven or disproven.

[Frumious B]

243. You can slap a quantity and a label on everything...

except for subjective first person experience. Science can do a lot, but the only thing that can make you an "I" is supernatural. It's simply not something that can ever be explained or measured scientifically because science, by its very nature, only deals in the third person. The only ones who can understand the unique and individual experience of being "you" are yourself and God.

[Stunster]

244. That's right

Objective physical science misses the part of ourselves that can't be described objectively---namely, our subjectivity. Science can only describe a person from the outside, as it were. But it can't describe a person as the person experiences him or her self.

There is nothing (we readily suppose) it is like to be Mount Everest. But there is (we readily suppose) something it is like to be the Dalai Lama. The latter has an inner subjective mental life, which is invisible and intangible. Mount Everest, by contrast, is visible and tangible, and doesn't have an inner, subjective, mental life.

There is no process for objectively describing the contents of inner mental lives. Yet it is our inner mental lives that we tend to think as the most important part of ourselves. It's the difference between first-person and third-person perspectives. By definition, there is no third-person perspective occupying the first-person perspective.

Scientific naturalism is the philosophical viewpoint which holds that all possible answers to all possible meaningful questions are scientific answers. It holds, a priori, that there can be no non-scientific (true) answers to any meaningful questions. But this misses the facts about what it is like to experience something (like an orgasm, or a pain, or anger, or compassion).

Scientific descriptions systematically fail, by the very nature of their inherent methodology and of the objects they describe (in other words, it's not the fault of science itself), to express adequately the subjective phenomena of human consciousness--the excitement of a first kiss, the exhilaration felt upon reaching the top of the mountain, the depths of despair at some personal tragedy.

Science by its vary nature excludes from its purview the subjectively experienced character of such things as making important scientific discoveries or mathematical breakthroughs, not to mention the felt quality of the emotions associated with love, beauty, poetry, art, music, friendship, and the sense of moral obligation and value. Brain-waves and other physical processes can be measured in individuals experiencing all these normal aspects of everyday life. But they are not the same as the experiences themselves. One could measure such physical processes in the brain and body of someone having a profound appreciation of music, for example. But if one were deaf, one simply wouldn't know the nature of what that appreciation truly consisted in or was truly directed at, no matter how accurate and replicable one's experimental results.

So concerned was one scientific naturalist, Richard Dawkins, about the reactions of his readers to the "cold, bleak message" of his earlier writings, that he wrote a book extolling the "deep aesthetic passion" of science which ranks "with the finest that music and poetry can deliver". But the aesthetic experiences of scientists are not in question. What Dawkins ought to but does not admit is that the existence of "aesthetic passions" experienced by scientists cannot be adequately accounted for by the creed of scientific naturalism which he avows! Francis Crick was more faithful to that creed when he wrote that science has shown that '"you", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules'.

As Crick phrasing implies, and pace Dawkins, scientific naturalism IS a bleak creed, because it excludes from its fundamental worldview and method of inquiry precisely those experiences in life which, for most people, make it worth living. In practice, no-one lives as if science were enough, even if the only other thing going on in their lives is the pleasure they derive from science itself.