Do you believe in a god that is

[SmashysmashY]

Do you believe in a god that is all powerful, all knowing, and created everything?

The reason that I ask this question is that if this god exists it would remove any responsibility from anyone else and place it all on the god. Let me explain:

If god created everything then everything was created by god, clearly.

If god is also all powerful then everything was created by god the way that god chose to create it and not another way, because go had the power to create it any way god wanted or not at all.

If god is also all knowing then everything was created by god the way that god chose and with god’s desired results, because if god wanted it to be a different way then god had the knowledge and the power to make it that way.

This creates a perfect circle of responsibility where nothing happens except for the things that god chooses to make happen and it does not leave room for anyone else to make choices. “But SmasysmashY, god created us with free will, that means we are all responsible for our own actions.” Yes, it would appear so at the outset wouldn’t it? But our three ifs actually preclude this as well.

Imagine that I created a robot, and I gave this robot free will, and I had nearly unlimited resources so I could have created this robot with any specifications. When I turn the robot on it prints a report of all the actions that it will ever engage in and I see that tomorrow at 13:00 hours the robot will pick up a hammer and hit my assistant in the face killing him instantly. I don’t make any adjustments and allow the robot to continue its existence unchanged. Who is responsible for the death, the robot or me?

If you haven’t figured it out I am god in this scenario and the robot is any person, and I am fully responsible in fact I could not be more responsible than I am because the death is a direct result of my actions, actions that I did not have to take, could have done differently, and knew exactly what the results would be. Of course for god it is much worse because I am only responsible for the robot and myself, but god’s responsibility would extend to everything including the existence of free will and its definition, parameters and the fact that anyone has it or that it even exists at all. This would make our creator god not only omnipotent and omniscient but also omni responsible.

[muhmuh]

Imagine that I created a robot, and I gave this robot free will

the problem with your argument is that the robot either has free will or you control its actions... theres no grey area here

[SmashysmashY]

Imagine that I created a robot, and I gave this robot free will

the problem with your argument is that the robot either has free will or you control its actions... theres no grey area here
Actually the problem with this analogy is that it does not convey the full extent of the responsibility that this kind of god would have.

By free will I mean autonomy, the ability to make decisions and act without commands. Having this quality does not remove the responsibility that I would have to prevent the murder. Especially since I knew about the murder, I had the ability to stop it, and it never would have happened if I had not chosen to engage in my actions.

You see, people believe (and irrationally so) that just saying free will, free will, makes these problems automatically go away. It doesn’t. It just moves the problem one step away from their god, but the responsibility would still lie ultimately with the individual that started the chain of events, knew what would happen and had the ability to change it. And again it is even worse for a god because a god would have decided what free will actually is. Free will doesn’t have to include the ability to hit someone with a hammer. You have free will but that does not mean that you can do absolutely anything, you can’t fly for example.

Beyond that consider all the things that factor into the decision making process that you have no control over. You don’t decide on what fears or desires you are going to have or any of the external factors that play into the decisions that you make (your surrounding environment). Ever single aspect of that (down to the placement of individual atoms) would have been created by a god (with full knowledge) who had the ability to make any adjustments they wanted to in order to tease out a different result. This would create perfect responsibility and free will would not necessarily even be possible in the way that most people think of the concept and it certainly wouldn’t remove the responsibility that this being would have.

[trish]

God created and transcends all. He lives outside of time and outside of space. He transcends natural law and He transcends blame. (Read Mark Twain’s novella The Stranger). When you get to define good and evil, then you are beyond good and evil. No, I don’t believe in the gods. Neither do I believe that good and evil are part of the fabric of the universe. Morality is a human construction. Being the inventors of morality, do we too therefore transcend good and evil? Sure, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to follow the precepts of moral custom. That’s why gods were invented: to keep those who don’t understand or agree the practical purposes of morality in line. Frankly, I don't think the gods do more harm than good.

[SmashysmashY]

The point was not to suggest that gods do more harm than good, but to explain that the concept is incoherent. "Outside of time" and "outside of space" are incoherent terms because to exist means to exist within time and space. There is a universe of discourse there where you have excluded everything that could possibly exist. So, to say that something exists outside of time and space is to say that it does not exist. You are correct that there are good reasons to behave in certain ways and there are reasons that are not so good. God is one of the not so good ones.

[trish]

I actually agree with you, smashysmashY. I brought up the transcendence bit partly in mockery of one rather clichéd answer to your paradox. But there is a slight problem. Existence is just the dual notion of universal quantification. In logic the existential quantifier is often define as follows:

There exists an object X with property P if and only if not everything in the universe fails to have property P.

Consequently, there are gods if and only if not everything in the universe isn’t a god.

The problem is the ol’ sidestep which claims there are “higher” universes in which He dwells. The retort is of course, “who made that one?” And so it goes forever. The Mormons have a nice play on this: If we’re good enough in this life, then we all get to be gods of our own universes in the next life. A question I would like to see someone put to Mitt Romney is:

Do you think being president would be good practice for being god in the next life?

[SmashysmashY]

I think you hit the nail right on the head. An infinite regress is unavoidable. Not to mention that it makes little sense to try to explain the existence of something (like intelligence) by making an appeal to the very thing you are trying to explain the existence of. As richard dawkins would say you’d be shooting yourself in the conceptual foot.

[trish]

Exactly why there is no god who created everything.

[muhmuh]

By free will I mean autonomy, the ability to make decisions and act without commands. Having this quality does not remove the responsibility that I would have to prevent the murder. Especially since I knew about the murder, I had the ability to stop it, and it never would have happened if I had not chosen to engage in my actions.

first of all consider how you would stop the murder if you were omnipotent... would you turn the hammer into a nerf dart right before impact or would you prevent the thought in the first place? obviously this is a fight of lazyness vs having a laugh... if i were god id probably go the lazy route

but with a little more seriouslness... doesnt the concept of free will include the ability to act on your decisions within your abilities?


"Outside of time" and "outside of space" are incoherent terms because to exist means to exist within time and space.

youre mistaken on that one... time and space are properties of the universe
if there is an entity that created the universe it must necessarily be outside of time and space otherwise it would have to begin to exist the moment the universe began thus making it impossible to be its creator

[ezed]

SmashysmashY,
Great post. You got me thinking in a million different directions. I'm posting now to keep updated as to new comments. Later I will come back with a post or be deeply engrossed in a book of theology. :idea:

Seriously, this really got me thinking.

[SmashysmashY]

but with a little more seriouslness... doesnt the concept of free will include the ability to act on your decisions within your abilities?

If you are going to argue that to prevent someone from doing something would affect their free will and god doesn’t affect people's free will then please let me stop you before you make this error.
If this kind of god existed then your free will would have already been affected. First, since the god is all-knowing it would know what you are going to do already. If your actions are already known then you can only do one thing (the thing god knows you will do) not more than one thing. Free will would involve the possibility to do at least two different things.
But it is worse than that because god would have created all the parameters of existence with foreknowledge and the ability to change anything. That means that god not only created all the things that factor into the decision making process that you have no control over (the environment, your temperament, the possible range of human experience etc.) but this god would also be responsible for creating concepts like free will, and choice, including the existence of the idea of choice.
So all things that exist and events that occur would be contingent upon this god, and every parameter of existence could have been different, so this god would be responsible for them being as they actually are. Therefore, this all-powerful god would be perfectly responsible for its creation being precisely as it is, this includes the existence of free will, and it's limits.

youre mistaken on that one... time and space are properties of the universe
if there is an entity that created the universe it must necessarily be outside of time and space otherwise it would have to begin to exist the moment the universe began thus making it impossible to be its creator

For all we know the universe was always there, and there is no reason to think otherwise. It’s incoherent because you can’t tell me what it means to exist outside of time and space, anything that is observable exists within time and space, and there is no reason to think that anything can exist outside of time and space. Read Trish’s post carefully. There is a universe of discourse. By saying “outside of time” or “immaterial” or “supernatural” you are not just excluding some things you have excluded everything that could exist.

[muhmuh]

...

youre still not getting it the very concept of free will is the ability to deliberately act against gods will


For all we know the universe was always there, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

i suggest you read up on the universe as such and the big bang in particular since right now youre basically in way over your head

[SmashysmashY]

The big bang is not a creation story. The matter in the universe existed when the big bang occurred as a singularity. It was a rapid expansion not a creation of the universe and anyone who has taken a first year astronomy class would know that.

And furthermore the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

[trish]

This discussion has lots of interesting directions to explore. In this post I would just like to look at one possible take on indeterminacy and omnicience. Imagine your body is controlled by someone else like a marionette. The puppeteer moves every limb and dictates every minute motion, often against your will. This is what it would be like to have free-will but no choice. This is what it would be like to have free-will but have no responsibility for your actions. This is the universe I believe SmashysmashY wishes us to envision, because this is the only universe that is allowed given human free-will, god’s omniscience and omnipotence. In such a universe it is the puppeteer who takes all the blame and all the credit for the actions of the marionettes. I do not believe this is an accurate depiction of the universe in which we live (nor do I disbelieve it), but it does seem to be the only picture that doesn’t directly contradict the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omniscient creator. You see, the hypothesis that the creator is omniscient is a hypothesis that places restrictions on the class of all possible worlds. Omniscience rules out the possibility that there are worlds which evolve in indeterminate ways, for a world whose future is truly indeterminate would be a world whose future would be unknown to the omniscient god! A marionette (with free-will or not) with an indeterminate future would have a future whose course was unknowable to the all-knowing god!!! Omniscience just isn’t compatible with indeterminacy and that’s why an omniscient being must take responsibility for ALL the consequences of its actions. It would certainly be morally unpleasant have omniscience.

But as we’ve already seen, omniscience isn’t a property a being can have UNLESS the history of every possible universe is determinate. Though this isn’t a proof that the notion of omniscience is inconsistent, for me it’s close enough.

Here’s a stab at a direct contradiction to omniscience (though I’m not sure I buy it myself): Does an omniscient being know how to make a puzzle so difficult even he can’t solve it?

[guyone]

Why would an omniscient being do a puzzle in the first place? Wouldn't you think he had way too much on his mind?

[North_of_60]

Thanks for this SmashysmashY. I wish I could be more eloquent in english. Sometimes, I look at my writting and feel I'm like Stephen Hawking speaking in a Simpson's episode.

Anyway, here I go...

God can only exist as an abolute idea. Absolutism goes way beyond concepts of space, time and reality. If I tell you God exist because "I" believe and "I" have faith, there is nothing more to be said. Since the human is the thinking object, he is the one who consciously feels what's right or wrong for him... First above all, human is a feeling machine, it's all genetically written, it's how he manage to survive through 15 billions years of evolution.

Death is the greatest challenge to any consciousness. Who can rationalize his own end ? Who can give sense to all this.... except God ? There must be a God cause I exist, I've lived, I've loved. Why this must end ? Why I must end ?

Consciousness is the the greatest act of the universe. It is the moment one biological unit looked at itself and said " here I am." But it is also the greatest burden, since the biological unit is meant to die, and it is understood.

Why does the deer starts running in the cold morning ?
Did it smelled the wolves closing in ?

Beliefs lives from fears and denial.
Faith as nothing to do with thruth or reality.
Yes, I'm going to die. Is this why there must be a God ?

I have great repect for spirituality and rituals, don't get me wrong.
Atheism is spiritual ; being able to understand and accept that death is the permanent and irreversible end of any biological organism is a greater spiritual act. And it lives very well under rituals.

Love and respect, good virtue, good hygien, empathy, have so much more to do with human nature and evolution than any will of any god.

The essential question is : "Why do I need to believe ?"
Once you've sincerely answered this question looking yourself in the mirror, you've got freewill... and you're an atheist.

[trish]

guyone, he doesn't have to design one or even do one, it's just a question of clashing capabilities.

[trish]

Hi North_of_60.


Atheism is spiritual ; being able to understand and accept that death is the permanent and irreversible end of any biological organism is a greater spiritual act.

If I understand you I think I agree with your sentiment here, but I do find myself bulking at the word spiritual. Atheism is a stoic act. It's just the ability to face the evidence and draw the hard conclusion that we are mortal. Neitzsche said one could judge a man by how much he had to salt his truth before he could swallow it.

[SmashysmashY]

Thank you to the people who have said nice things, but I want everyone to be sure that not all these ideas originated from me and I don’t claim that they do. I get information from various sources (books, essays, lectures) and I compile them, alter them, and put them into my own words. If anyone wants a list of my sources then just ask and I will do the best I can to put one together. Thanks.

[North_of_60]

Hi Trish,

Zeno the stoic was a very spiritual guy.

Altought my doctor insist that I moderate myself on salty food, tell me how in hell would I be able to cook such a nice and tasty "risotto" ?

I'd like to emphasize that atheism is not necessarily materialism.

Cogito ergo sum Ideas are of an immaterial existence. An atheist doesn't deny the word "spirit". Human spirit is a journey, an idea, in wich each human takes part. Each time I communicate, share infos with you or the others, it's an extension of my own self ; nothing seazable, as sand that one can't hold in his hand.

If a supreme being is to be conceptualize, it's through an absolut dependence such as Nature as conceptualized by antic stoism or Spinoza. Then you'll find as much god in science, lyrism or poetry, than the Talmud or the New Testament.

To me, philosophy and metaphysic are very spiritual.

[muhmuh]

The matter in the universe existed when the big bang occurred as a singularity.

yes but neither the universe nor space not time existed "before" the big bang


It was a rapid expansion not a creation of the universe and anyone who has taken a first year astronomy class would know that.

1) its not astronomy but astrophysics
2) yes it was since the big bang is the moment when space time started to exist


And furthermore the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

the first law of thermodynmaics is a property of the univiserse which did not exist before the big bang and therefore is not applicable to a (non scientific (science is empirical and thus can only be applied to things happening within the universe)) debate about what triggered the big bang

[SmashysmashY]

I see that you put the word “before” in quotes because you realize at least partly that it does not make sense to refer to something occurring before the big bang since as you said that is when space time started to exist, yet you proceed to talk about event occurring before the big bang as if you are ignoring your own statements.

The word “before” refers to a point in time. If you say “A happened before B” then you mean that “an event A occurred at a time T in time and event B occurred at a point in time prior to T.” To ask what happened before the big bang is asking for a point in time while conceptualizing a state where time does not exist. It's a meaningless question.

The word “always” means "at all times" or "for all the time that existed". You say that “the big bang is the moment when space time started to exist.” So according to your own definition the universe has always existed. You just refuted your own argument.

But the matter that was created at the big bang was created because the energy-mass relation was reversed. So an amount of energy E was converted into particles whose mass equaled E/c^2. In order for that to happen the energy had to exist. So it is not a creation ex nihilo.

Furthermore will you please explain to me how you think a god can create something while operating outside of time or before time? To create something would require at least two points in time, a point before it is created and a point when it is created. But you are saying that there was no time. Without time god wouldn’t have time to create anything.

[muhmuh]

I see that you put the word “before” in quotes because you realize at least partly that it does not make sense to refer to something occurring before the big bang since as you said that is when space time started to exist, yet you proceed to talk about event occurring before the big bang as if you are ignoring your own statements.

The word “before” refers to a point in time. If you say “A happened before B” then you mean that “an event A occurred at a time T in time and event B occurred at a point in time prior to T.” To ask what happened before the big bang is asking for a point in time while conceptualizing a state where time does not exist. It's a meaningless question.

stop trying to twist what i said you know perfectly well that words fail to properly explain the concept properly


The word “always” means "at all times" or "for all the time that existed". You say that “the big bang is the moment when space time started to exist.” So according to your own definition the universe has always existed. You just refuted your own argument.

you also know perfectly well that the way you said it always was used in the sense of eternal and not as since time existed


But the matter that was created at the big bang was created because the energy-mass relation was reversed. So an amount of energy E was converted into particles whose mass equaled E/c^2. In order for that to happen the energy had to exist. So it is not a creation ex nihilo.

so... where did the energy come from then? exactly out of nowhere it simply decided to start to exists
for all we know god is as good an explanation for that as coincidence is


Furthermore will you please explain to me how you think a god can create something while operating outside of time or before time? To create something would require at least two points in time, a point before it is created and a point when it is created. But you are saying that there was no time. Without time god wouldn’t have time to create anything.

why would a being existing outside the realm of the physics applying to our universe be bound by the same constraints we are for the simple reason that we live in that particular universe?

[SmashysmashY]

I’m sorry. I’m not trying to twist your words around. That wouldn’t convince you. It wouldn’t satisfy me and it would just make everybody think I was being a jerk. And I’m not. Obviously we are using some terms differently. As far as I know nobody knows what happened before 10^-44 seconds after the big bang occurred. I never said it was a coincidence, but why don’t you tell me why you think god is a valid explanation and I’ll tell you why I think it is not a valid explanation.

[trish]

In mathematics one learns to distinguish open interval from closed intervals. An open interval is a connected subset of the real line which doesn’t contain its boundary points (for example {x: 0 < x}). A closed interval is a connected subset which does contain its boundary points. Regardless of your choice of coordinate patches, the history of the universe spans an open interval of time. (This is because all the current purely relativistic descriptions of the cosmic expansion have an unavoidable singularity). The proper interpretation of this is there is NO first moment and consequently NO creation. The matter/energy that is here now was always here. It didn’t have to come from anywhere else since there is no anywhere else or anywhen else. Nothing had to decide to start to exist since starting is a temporal notion. It was always here. There is no moment when the singularity happened. There is no moment when the expansion was initiated. The universe (according to the models allowed by general relativity) was always expanding.

This is really a very old take on the origin of the universe because it’s mathematically equivalent to saying that one can choose a system of spacetime coordinates in which the universe is infinitely old. The temporal coordinate of one such system is know to cosmologists as York time. In essence the York time of an event is proportional to the log of the time given to the event by a fundamental observer. By this definition the York time of a very early event is going to be negative and have a very large magnitude. As one examines events further and further back in history approaching the singularity, the York time of those events goes to negative infinity. In York time, the universe is infinitely old and there was no beginning, no first moment, no opportunity for a creation event.


So where is a god supposed to stand when it creates such a universe?
It is possible to imagine and model larger universes, such as the multiverse of Linde or Vilenkin which is continually budding bubbles universes similar to but distinct from our own. But the origins of these models are also absent, in the sense that they have no first moments. In these multiverses you may have gods creating the bubble universes (though they would be repugnant extras to Occam’s razor) but there could be no god that creates the multiverse. Personally I would take the razor to the whole multiverse idea which makes little in the way of testable predictions.

[ezed]

I think we have to go back to the premise that we really don't know shit. Maybe the big bang, isn't so big. Maybe the universe is a subset. There maybe millions of universes which we are not privey to. Because we are limited to our own. It's all our little mind can fathom.

The scenarios are endless, unless we consider ourselves more superior than what we are. And doing that makes us feel comfortable.

Fuck, you can carry this out forever. But our feeble minds won't let us....or will it?

This thread is like a mind expanding drug. And that is a good thing!

Thank you SmashysmashY.

Are you really from Earth as your location states?

[insert_namehere]

Ezed got on the right track with "we don't know shit". While it's an interesting set of hypotheses, theories, presumptions and assumptions that have been laid out in various directions in this thread - each and every one has a fatal core of "belief" attached to it.

In essence, there's a premise the reader HAS to accept prior to reading the rest of the argument.

Back to the original post: "Do you believe in a god that is all powerful, all knowing, and created everything?"

Right there, you've set up a limited definition of what a supreme entity might or might not be. As such, to continue the argument, I'd have to accept that that is the only definition for what "God" (for lack of a better term) may or may not be.

Math, physics, natural sciences, etc. are easy to grasp in that they have tangible and definable rules, outcomes, etc. (long pause) At least - within existence as human beings have experienced it. The problem here is that we occupy a miniscule part of the universe, or time/space, whatever you want to call it. Human beings have a marvelous gift for observation and then using observation, constructing abstract thought from that. It's the wellspring of most creative and intellectual disciplines, as well as quite a few philosophical and theological ones. It all hovers around at least ONE act of faith - The principles we observe within our existence are THE principles of ALL existence. That could be true and it could NOT be true - accepting it is a matter of faith and belief.

You know... sort of like the same thing people that believe there is a some sort of Supreme Entity out there that holds it all together in some manner or other.

We all wind up going with our gut at the end of the day. We all buy into some premise that we build a belief system around. As much as one person would like to say that their "body of evidence to support what they believe" is greater than another's, it doesn't matter how high the stack of research may be - you still have an unprovable at the core.

Me - I prefer to think I wake up in a harmonious universe that may have some glitches but still hums along quite nicely, thanks in part to something beyond my ability to grasp.

Could be true or it could be bullshit, but it makes ME feel better about things.

Until we know otherwise, that's the final measure we got - how each of us feels about it.

[SmashysmashY]

Back to the original post: "Do you believe in a god that is all powerful, all knowing, and created everything?"

Right there, you've set up a limited definition of what a supreme entity might or might not be. As such, to continue the argument, I'd have to accept that that is the only definition for what "God" (for lack of a better term) may or may not be.

That may be a limited definition of god to you, but suffice it to say that is the definition that most people have.


Math, physics, natural sciences, etc. are easy to grasp in that they have tangible and definable rules, outcomes, etc. (long pause) At least - within existence as human beings have experienced it. The problem here is that we occupy a miniscule part of the universe, or time/space, whatever you want to call it. Human beings have a marvelous gift for observation and then using observation, constructing abstract thought from that. It's the wellspring of most creative and intellectual disciplines, as well as quite a few philosophical and theological ones. It all hovers around at least ONE act of faith - The principles we observe within our existence are THE principles of ALL existence. That could be true and it could NOT be true - accepting it is a matter of faith and belief.

You know... sort of like the same thing people that believe there is a some sort of Supreme Entity out there that holds it all together in some manner or other.

Actually it is not the same thing. It is such a different thing that we should probably use a different word. Faith has at lest two distinct meanings. One has a theological sense and the other is more of a colloquial sense. The belief that the “principles we observe within our existence are THE principles of ALL existence” is a belief that is contingent upon experience. We hold that belief because we make observations that support it. It is not “faith” in the same sense as religious faith. It would be more accurate to call it trust. We trust what we observe.

Faith in a religious sense is what you would call a“leap of faith.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_of_faith) It is belief in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence. It is not contingent upon experience, is held regardless of its irrational nature, and seeks little or no justification from reality.

So that comparison is not really a valid one and I would call that equivocation.

[trish]

Nicely said, SmashysmashY. I’ve nothing to add to your analysis of the distinction between trust in conclusions drawn from evidence (that is continually being tested and refined) and faith. I also agree with ezed that our minds a feeble in comparison to the project we have set them to, understanding the universe in which we dwell. This goes along with insert_name_here’s comment:


Me - I prefer to think I wake up in a harmonious universe that may have some glitches but still hums along quite nicely, thanks in part to something beyond my ability to grasp.

Very few people, atheist, scientist, priest or parson would disagree that there’s something greater than they. To say that there may be some things beyond our ability to grasp in no way implies the existence of any sort of gods. Nor does it prove they don’t exist. The feebleness of our minds is just irrelevant to the question. Nevertheless, I personally do not choose to give up on the project of trying to understand through reason.

[insert_namehere]

That may be a limited definition of god to you, but suffice it to say that is the definition that most people have.


Most people who? Buddhists have a very different viewpoint - that's approximately 376 million folks right there. Hindus? Add another 900 million, but then you guys already negated the concept of Pararahman by stating that


and there is no reason to think that anything can exist outside of time and space.

which, by its basic etymology is something "transcendent of time and space" - but, there you go. Obviously the Western world is the only world that matters.

So, discounting most of Asia and the Indian sub-continent, what we're talking about is a Euro-centric vision of God.



Actually it is not the same thing. It is such a different thing that we should probably use a different word. Faith has at lest two distinct meanings. One has a theological sense and the other is more of a colloquial sense. The belief that the "principles we observe within our existence are THE principles of ALL existence" is a belief that is contingent upon experience. We hold that belief because we make observations that support it. It is not "faith" in the same sense as religious faith. It would be more accurate to call it trust. We trust what we observe.

faith (noun) American Heritage Dictionary

1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3) Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4) The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5) The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6) A set of principles or beliefs.

Gee, lookie there... 3 colloquialisms before one in a "theological sense" even shows up. Funny thing is, the "theological sense" tends to occupy slot 3 or four in any dictionary I look up the word "faith" in. And gee whiz, look at the FIRST definition, that old bugaboo "truth" - and HOKEY SMOKES!! The second definition lists "trust" as a synonym. So, let's toss re-definition aside, shall we? Faith, to most English speaking persons can be equated to trust, at least, according to the folks who publish dictionaries.

Now, let's get back to the issue of experience.



The belief that the "principles we observe within our existence are THE principles of ALL existence" is a belief that is contingent upon experience. We hold that belief because we make observations that support it. It is not "faith" in the same sense as religious faith. It would be more accurate to call it trust. We trust what we observe.


Which could be interpreted to mean that if every dog I ever saw in my life was yellow, along with every reference about dogs anyone ever made to me included the statement that "it was a yellow dog" and nowhere EVER in my experience, did I have anything ever occur that would negate my observations of yellow dogs - by that measure, I would know that all dogs are yellow? Or, would it be better to say I believed, I trusted that all dogs were yellow?

I mean, come on, it's been justified by my reality, right?

You'll note, I said MY reality.

As such, I don't find it an equivocation at all, do you?

[trish]

If one hypothesized a being outside of any space and any time, then one could not speak of that being using spatial or temporal terms. That being could not be responsible for creating the universe in which we dwell because creation is a temporal notion.
This thread opens with the question:


Do you believe in a god that is all powerful, all knowing, and created everything?



If we stick to wording of the question the answer’s got to be “no,” because the notions are omniscience and omnipotence are inconsistent.

We could rephrase:
Could the universe have been created by some sort of being?
Only the sort of being to whom it is appropriate to ascribe temporal actions; it dwells in a space and a time, perhaps extending the one he created.

Could everything have been created by some sort of being?
NO. Because creating requires the being lives within a temporal duration. Who created his universe? An infinite regress of gods ensues.

Okay let’s rephrase again:
Could a being outside of any space and any time be responsible for the universe in which we dwell and be responsible for everything else including itself?
Only if one can make sense of the question can it be answered. In particular the notion of responsible cannot involve actions that take place in time. But suppose we decide that beings transcendent of space and time are somehow responsible for our universe. Then we’re back to SmashysmashY’s original point: blame for the ills of our world would rest with those gods who are responsible for our world, but then those gods could not be all good. If there were just one such god, then it’s not all good.

[SmashysmashY]

Most people who? Buddhists have a very different viewpoint - that's approximately 376 million folks right there. Hindus? Add another 900 million, but then you guys already negated the concept of Pararahman by stating that

There are 2.1 billion Christians in this world and 1.3 billion Muslims. That is more than half the world’s population right there. The group of people who hold these beliefs is obviously larger than the groups that do not. That is what most means.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c5/Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherants_by_Religion.png/800px-Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherants_by_Religion.png


which, by its basic etymology is something "transcendent of time and space" - but, there you go. Obviously the Western world is the only world that matters.

So, discounting most of Asia and the Indian sub-continent, what we're talking about is a Euro-centric vision of God.

What does outside of time mean? How does something operate outside of time? You have offered no explanations at all, just because you can say something that doesn’t make it coherent.


Gee, lookie there... 3 colloquialisms before one in a "theological sense" even shows up. Funny thing is, the "theological sense" tends to occupy slot 3 or four in any dictionary I look up the word "faith" in. And gee whiz, look at the FIRST definition, that old bugaboo "truth" - and HOKEY SMOKES!! The second definition lists "trust" as a synonym. So, let's toss re-definition aside, shall we? Faith, to most English speaking persons can be equated to trust, at least, according to the folks who publish dictionaries.

Dictionaries exist to provide definitions that people might use. Would you be surprised to find out that not all of these definitions are appropriate for every context? Some theological and philosophical terms have colloquial usages and dictionaries list these definitions, sometimes along with the proper theological definitions. Dictionaries do not offer a rigorous philosophical justification for every definition listed. That is your error. Your source does not provide a philosophical justification for the definition; it is merely citing common usage. So, yes it is equivocation.


Which could be interpreted to mean that if every dog I ever saw in my life was yellow, along with every reference about dogs anyone ever made to me included the statement that "it was a yellow dog" and nowhere EVER in my experience, did I have anything ever occur that would negate my observations of yellow dogs - by that measure, I would know that all dogs are yellow? Or, would it be better to say I believed, I trusted that all dogs were yellow?

I mean, come on, it's been justified by my reality, right?

It would be trust and you wouldn’t have any way of justifying the belief that dogs were anything but yellow. Of course outside of your analogy you would be able to investigate beyond what you saw on your street or what people have said to you in passing about dogs so you could easily figure out that not all dogs are yellow. So I don’t think that analogy really drives home the point you are trying to make. But if something is completely outside of your experience and your ability to investigate the matter then the best you can say about it is “I don’t know”. You can’t just make naked assertions and expect that it will be placed on par with empirical data.

[insert_namehere]

Okay, so far we've learned the following:

1) "more" = "most"
2) Dictionaries, rather than being a standard for grammar, etymology and definition so that there can be a basis of understanding when a given word is used (i.e. "You say sex is carnal knowledge? I was nowhere NEAR her car!") in reality offer definitions people MIGHT use.
3) People don't really READ a post prior to responding to it.



What does outside of time mean? How does something operate outside of time? You have offered no explanations at all, just because you can say something that doesn't make it coherent.

Trish said "outside", I said "transcends". While I know you don't put a lot of stock in what dictionaries have to say, in pure theological terms, it would mean independent of time and space - in other words, time and space are irrelevant to its' being.

That might be a little more coherent if you took the chip off your shoulder.



So I don't think that analogy really drives home the point you are trying to make. But if something is completely outside of your experience and your ability to investigate the matter then the best you can say about it is "I don't know". You can't just make naked assertions and expect that it will be placed on par with empirical data.


It does if you read my post carefully without rushing to conclusions. My post states that without any evidence ANYWHERE that there are anything but yellow dogs, the only conclusion I can come to is that all dogs are yellow.

Living in a universe populated with nothing but yellow dogs doesn't preclude the possibility that brown dogs exist, but you wouldn't have any empirical data to back that up. According to your argument, unless there is empirical evidence, all dogs are yellow.

So, we get back to the nub. The core argument for anything is belief that the taproot from which the rest of the evidence is hung upon is the only possible reality.

Okay, let's get back to the initial query in the post, which, I can only assume was prompted by the blog entry in the ethics section of onphilosphy.wordpress.com on June 15th: http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/leibniz%e2%80%99s-dilemma/

It's a neat little argument positing that the existence of ethics precludes the existence of God.

It precludes the existence of a certain TYPE of God, yes - but since the whole issue of God operating within the same ethical standard as man is suspect at best, in the end, it's an argument that goes nowhere.

Before this runs further and becomes acrimonious on anyone's part - a couple of questions.

Can you agree that there is a possibility that "existence as we know it" may not, in fact BE nothing other than "existence as we know it"? In other words, is it possible that the empirical evidence of physics, such as "matter can neither be created not destroyed" is accepted only because there has been nothing to counterindicate it? We have assumptions as to what matter is, we have speculation on the issue of creation - but, supernovas observed or not, we have no proof.

Second question: Do you feel that any/all belief in some sort of Supreme Entity (call it what you will) is merely ignorant hocus pocus?

Third question: Do you feel that empiricism is the only litmus test for the "reality" of something?

Fourth question: IF you feel empiricism is the only leveler of truth... why are you indulging in what is ostensibly a philosophical debate? If you have an agenda in your initial post, why not just state it?

If my reply seems prickly, I apologise... it's just the way I write sometimes.

[SmashysmashY]

Why should I be concerned with trying to decipher the post of someone who won’t even admit that more than half is most? I don’t have a chip on my shoulder, but if you give me guff I’ll give it right back. And if you try to use an american heritage dictionary as a philosophical justification for using a term then yes I’ll say that’s fallacious. The purpose of a dictionary is to provide all the definitions for a word in the common usage, not to offer a philosophical justification.

And now you are just setting up a straw man to knock down easily. I did not say that it would preclude the possibility that brown dogs exist. I said you would have no justification for making that assertion. And what you appear to be saying is that you don’t need justification to make any claim because things exist outside of your experience. Well, let’s talk about real life then. If I claim that some dogs are 30 feet tall, purple, and have two heads, what justification do I have to make that claim? None, but you say that I can make it anyway because I haven’t looked in every volcano, and under the arctic ice sheet, or at the bottom of the Marianas trench, maybe there are 30 feet tall, purple, two-headed dogs there.

I didn’t say that no possible gods could exist. I said that this kind of god could not exist. You already concede that but then you try to argue with points I never made; but you don’t want to offer any reasoning or evidence that it does exist or that anything exists beyond what we perceive to be reality. You just want to attack empiricism to create wiggle room for making baseless assertions.

Wouldn’t you at least agree that it would be prudent to base our contentions on pre-existing facts instead of just throwing out wild claims about what might go on in some heretofore unknown and undefined realm of existence?

[insert_namehere]

Why should I be concerned with trying to decipher the post of someone who won't even admit that more than half is most? I don't have a chip on my shoulder, but if you give me guff I'll give it right back. And if you try to use an american heritage dictionary as a philosophical justification for using a term then yes I'll say that's fallacious. The purpose of a dictionary is to provide all the definitions for a word in the common usage, not to offer a philosophical justification.

I'll concede the first point of "That may be a limited definition of god to you, but suffice it to say that is the definition that most people have." in the interest of yes, 53 to 54% of the world's population (according to your posted graph) prescribe to that definition of god.

Now, in regards to dictionaries - defining a term is sort of critical to good communication, yes? "Justifying" the use of a term, when it turns contrary to the definition of a term, I'd have to question. I've never run across a philosophical Concordia that defines "the term faith MUST mean this in all philosophical discussions" or "the term belief must mean this", since, well... that would mean that all participants in the discussion would have to agree that that yes, faith = thus and belief = that. If that were the case, I could go about writing definitions to justify any argument I want. Nobody would buy into it, of course, but still.



And now you are just setting up a straw man to knock down easily. I did not say that it would preclude the possibility that brown dogs exist. I said you would have no justification for making that assertion. And what you appear to be saying is that you don't need justification to make any claim because things exist outside of your experience. Well, let's talk about real life then. If I claim that some dogs are 30 feet tall, purple, and have two heads, what justification do I have to make that claim? None, but you say that I can make it anyway because I haven't looked in every volcano, and under the arctic ice sheet, or at the bottom of the Marianas trench, maybe there are 30 feet tall, purple, two-headed dogs there.


Again, if you READ my previous post, I said:
My post states that without any evidence ANYWHERE that there are anything but yellow dogs, the only conclusion I can come to is that all dogs are yellow.

Living in a universe populated with nothing but yellow dogs doesn't preclude the possibility that brown dogs exist, but you wouldn't have any empirical data to back that up. According to your argument, unless there is empirical evidence, all dogs are yellow.

I agreed that under purely empirical rules, given the state of existence I would be in, I would have no justification for assuming that any other color dog exists.

Now, not to belabor the point, but the condition of the empirical argument is one that is based on the belief that no other alternative to "existence as we experience it" can exist. I don't understand why this is such a bone of contention. We all operate on some basis of assumption, the issue of what is "reality" being just one of many.



I didn't say that no possible gods could exist. I said that this kind of god could not exist. You already concede that but then you try to argue with points I never made; but you don't want to offer any reasoning or evidence that it does exist or that anything exists beyond what we perceive to be reality. You just want to attack empiricism to create wiggle room for making baseless assertions.


My initial post wasn't in response to you, but to a comment that ezed made. As such, indeed I was dealing with points you didn't make, since I wasn't addressing you. However, you chose to respond to my post, at which time, yes indeedy, you and I were having a dialogue.

Regarding "evidence" of God, even the definition of god you posted initially in this thread, naturally would fall apart in a strictly empirical argument, which is the reason I posted this question:

Second question: Do you feel that any/all belief in some sort of Supreme Entity (call it what you will) is merely ignorant hocus pocus?

as well as the follow up questions. Man has been struggling with observable conditions versus spiritual beliefs (at least in writing) since Plato's Republic. Interpreting measurable phenomena and trying to understand what it means (especially phenomena that can only be observed, not experienced, such as collapsing suns, black holes) is tricky. Sometimes it reinforces a belief that there is some sort of harmony to the universe, which would tend to imply oversight on SOME cosmic level, and at other times, seems chaotic (which would reinforce a belief that all is merely random happenstance). While mankind can grapple with VERY sophisticated formulas and models to shore up the conclusions they come to, history has shown us over and over again that what is TRUE at one point, turns out to be supposition at another.



Wouldn't you at least agree that it would be prudent to base our contentions on pre-existing facts instead of just throwing out wild claims about what might go on in some heretofore unknown and undefined realm of existence?


If we go only by pre-existing facts, there is no fact to indicate that god or gods of any sort exist. If you want to argue the motivation and responsibility of ONE thing whose existence in an empirical argument cannot exist, then you've let the camel's nose under the tent flap and all sorts of possibilities can be allowed in.

So, again, I'm asking you in a very warm and friendly manner, as well as being genuinely curious as to what your responses will be, please respond to the following:

Can you agree that there is a possibility that "existence as we know it" may not, in fact BE nothing other than "existence as we know it"? In other words, is it possible that the empirical evidence of physics, such as "matter can neither be created not destroyed" is accepted only because there has been nothing to counterindicate it? We have assumptions as to what matter is, we have speculation on the issue of creation - but, supernovas observed or not, we have no proof.

Second question: Do you feel that any/all belief in some sort of Supreme Entity (call it what you will) is merely ignorant hocus pocus?

Third question: Do you feel that empiricism is the only litmus test for the "reality" of something?

Fourth question: IF you feel empiricism is the only leveler of truth... why are you indulging in what is ostensibly a philosophical debate? If you have an agenda in your initial post, why not just state it?

Thanks in advance for your response.

[trish]

Lacking a general definition or universally accepted concept of god, one can never prove there are no gods. One can quite reasonably argue there are no beings having qualities X, Y and Z. In my last post I quite definitely left open that possibility that some transcendent committee of gods might be responsible for the universe in which we dwell, provided “responsible” is understood in a way that doesn’t require spatial or temporal concepts. To the extent that a god is responsible for our universe, it is also responsible for the good and the evil that goes on within it. Frankly I see nothing wrong with such gods, even though I personally see no need of them. This I think is the best answer I can give at the moment to insert_namehere’s first and second questions. (I know they’re not really addressed to me as much as to SmashysmashY, but I’m still interested in this discussion and thought I take a stab at the posed questions…I ask everyone’s indulgence).

We really do have to be careful to agree upon a universe of discourse before embarking on proofs or disproofs involving universal or existential claims. This is exactly what the yellow dog example illustrates.
If there really are no yellow dogs in the universe, then the existence of non-yellow dogs is precluded. This is because existence is a quantifier that ranges over the universe of discourse. What is not precluded is that one might imagine another universe with a black dog. One could attempt to extend the universe of discourse so as to include dogs of other colors. To do so requires that it be explained how the universe of discourse is to be extended so that we all understand what we’re talking about. To say merely that we’re going extend to contain things things that didn’t exist in the old universe does no work. To say we’re going to extend it to include dogs of other colors begs the question.
Claims that the gods are responsible for miracles that disrupt the flow of natural law in our universe are claims that (because they take place in our universe) are subject to the criticism of empirical science. If the gods remain transcendent, they remain out of the reach of that sort of attack. So to the third question I would answer YES if by reality you meant that the universe of discourse is the cosmos of empirical science. I might answer NO if you described a different universe of discourse.

To the fourth question I would respond, that certain kinds of mathematical proofs are levelers of truth which many people would say don’t require empirical claims. What I have in mind here is a claim like “The Pythagorean theorem is deducible via classical logic from the axioms and postulates of Euclidean geometry.”

[SmashysmashY]

Now, in regards to dictionaries - defining a term is sort of critical to good communication, yes? "Justifying" the use of a term, when it turns contrary to the definition of a term, I'd have to question. I've never run across a philosophical Concordia that defines "the term faith MUST mean this in all philosophical discussions" or "the term belief must mean this", since, well... that would mean that all participants in the discussion would have to agree that that yes, faith = thus and belief = that. If that were the case, I could go about writing definitions to justify any argument I want. Nobody would buy into it, of course, but still.

If you want to use a term in a theological sense then why can’t you refer to the religions texts of the religions that use the term and see how they use it? Or better yet look at how adherents of the religion use the term.

So, if someone has faith that Jesus will come back to life is that contingent upon experience? Do they believe it because they see people come back to life all the time, or they have reason to believe that it is even possible? Nobody has ever come back to from the dead in all of recorded history. It obviously is not contingent upon experience. In fact the belief is held in spite of past experience.

But if I have faith that if I step off the ledge of a building I will fall and my bones will be smashed when I hit the pavement I am relying on nothing to hold that belief other than observation. You could call that faith if you wanted to but it would clearly not be the same kind of faith. It would be contingent upon something while in contrast religious faith does not seek that kind of justification.

You said that it is the same thing and I don’t agree.



Now, not to belabor the point, but the condition of the empirical argument is one that is based on the belief that no other alternative to "existence as we experience it" can exist. I don't understand why this is such a bone of contention. We all operate on some basis of assumption, the issue of what is "reality" being just one of many.

The reason I started arguing with you in the first place is because you are conflating that belief which is contingent upon observation, with god belief which is not. Not all assumptions are equal. My assumption that I will win the lottery tomorrow is not equal to my assumption that I will go to work tomorrow. One of them has an astronomically high chance of not being accurate and the other is almost certainly accurate.


Can you agree that there is a possibility that "existence as we know it" may not, in fact BE nothing other than "existence as we know it"? In other words, is it possible that the empirical evidence of physics, such as "matter can neither be created not destroyed" is accepted only because there has been nothing to counterindicate it? We have assumptions as to what matter is, we have speculation on the issue of creation - but, supernovas observed or not, we have no proof.

I was not trying to avoid this question I was just not sure exactly what it meant. If you mean that there are things about how the universe operates that people don’t know then clearly that’s true because there is no unifying theory. But that doesn’t mean there is a reason to believe that the information we are not privy to yet will completely overturn everything we know about the physical laws that govern the universe. That would still be no reason to think that actions don’t have to occur in time for example.

I don’t know what every god belief is so I can’t say they are all ignorant. Maybe some are completely reasonable.

What would you replace empiricism with I wonder.

So far as the fourth question goes if you claim that something exists then you are making a claim about the observable physical world and anyone has the right to challenge you. I believe it was Richard Dawkins that said:

“If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so.”

[qeuqheeg222]

me step mom was zoroaster..has anybody here read this christopher hitchens book about god?i'm kinda curious...

[guyone]

More communist propaganda...

[LG]

More communist propaganda...Seeing as this is the "Politics and Religion forum" I think people are entitled to give their views and opinions not only on political issues but also on religion. I don't see how any of this can be viewed as communist propaganda, but if you don't like it, just don't pay attention to it.

We should all be free to express ourselves without being branded as communists or pigeonholed into one or another category. That is the very idea of free speech, an ideal you say you support. And free speech is the very thing that drives not only this particular forum but- even more so- this whole website, seeing as it is a website on transsexuals. You do know what transsexuals are, right? Or did you just stumble upon this forum and not look into the General discussion? I suggest you have a look. For one thing, there are some very pretty girls there (yes, it's true, some of them have dicks, but you'll get used to that). For another, it will mean less time spent in the Politics discussion which will be good for all of us.

Just a friendly suggestion

[svenson]

Most people who? Buddhists have a very different viewpoint - that's approximately 376 million folks right there. Hindus? Add another 900 million, but then you guys already negated the concept of Pararahman by stating that

There are 2.1 billion Christians in this world and 1.3 billion Muslims. That is more than half the world’s population right there. The group of people who hold these beliefs is obviously larger than the groups that do not. That is what most means.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c5/Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherants_by_Religion.png/800px-Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherants_by_Religion.png


which, by its basic etymology is something "transcendent of time and space" - but, there you go. Obviously the Western world is the only world that matters.

So, discounting most of Asia and the Indian sub-continent, what we're talking about is a Euro-centric vision of God.

What does outside of time mean? How does something operate outside of time? You have offered no explanations at all, just because you can say something that doesn’t make it coherent.


Gee, lookie there... 3 colloquialisms before one in a "theological sense" even shows up. Funny thing is, the "theological sense" tends to occupy slot 3 or four in any dictionary I look up the word "faith" in. And gee whiz, look at the FIRST definition, that old bugaboo "truth" - and HOKEY SMOKES!! The second definition lists "trust" as a synonym. So, let's toss re-definition aside, shall we? Faith, to most English speaking persons can be equated to trust, at least, according to the folks who publish dictionaries.

Dictionaries exist to provide definitions that people might use. Would you be surprised to find out that not all of these definitions are appropriate for every context? Some theological and philosophical terms have colloquial usages and dictionaries list these definitions, sometimes along with the proper theological definitions. Dictionaries do not offer a rigorous philosophical justification for every definition listed. That is your error. Your source does not provide a philosophical justification for the definition; it is merely citing common usage. So, yes it is equivocation.


Which could be interpreted to mean that if every dog I ever saw in my life was yellow, along with every reference about dogs anyone ever made to me included the statement that "it was a yellow dog" and nowhere EVER in my experience, did I have anything ever occur that would negate my observations of yellow dogs - by that measure, I would know that all dogs are yellow? Or, would it be better to say I believed, I trusted that all dogs were yellow?

I mean, come on, it's been justified by my reality, right?

It would be trust and you wouldn’t have any way of justifying the belief that dogs were anything but yellow. Of course outside of your analogy you would be able to investigate beyond what you saw on your street or what people have said to you in passing about dogs so you could easily figure out that not all dogs are yellow. So I don’t think that analogy really drives home the point you are trying to make. But if something is completely outside of your experience and your ability to investigate the matter then the best you can say about it is “I don’t know”. You can’t just make naked assertions and expect that it will be placed on par with empirical data.

i didnt no zorastrians still here i thought it died long ago

[SmashysmashY]

We really do have to be careful to agree upon a universe of discourse before embarking on proofs or disproofs involving universal or existential claims. This is exactly what the yellow dog example illustrates.
If there really are no yellow dogs in the universe, then the existence of non-yellow dogs is precluded. This is because existence is a quantifier that ranges over the universe of discourse. What is not precluded is that one might imagine another universe with a black dog. One could attempt to extend the universe of discourse so as to include dogs of other colors. To do so requires that it be explained how the universe of discourse is to be extended so that we all understand what we’re talking about. To say merely that we’re going extend to contain things things that didn’t exist in the old universe does no work. To say we’re going to extend it to include dogs of other colors begs the question.

Yes! You put this much better than I could. If you are going to define something negatively, using negative terms like “supernatural” or “immaterial”, or concepts like “outside of time” there has to be something left over for the thing to be. Using these terms excludes everything from the universe of discourse so when you speak of these things you speak of nothing.

[insert_namehere]

Yes! You put this much better than I could. If you are going to define something negatively, using negative terms like "supernatural" or "immaterial", or concepts like "outside of time" there has to be something left over for the thing to be. Using these terms excludes everything from the universe of discourse so when you speak of these things you speak of nothing.


Sigh.

Look, you decided to construct a debate that is ruled by "known precepts" of physics, physical law, empirical evidence, etc.; but also included an omnipotent, omnipresent and prescient being.

Your construct, not mine.



Do you believe in a god that is all powerful, all knowing, and created everything?


The result of this is an empirical universe that includes ONE being that cannot exist within the rules, boundary and laws of this universe you want to stay inside of.

So, since you want me to only discuss the logic of this illogical being within the confines of the rules you want me to stay inside of - please tell me how an omnipotent creator god fits in the this empirical universe.

I will hold all my arguments within the explanation you can give me that allows for a supreme omnipotent being but does not allow for the possibility of aspects of this empirical universe that we, as the top sentient beings who define what can and cannot exist in this universe may not be aware of.

Thanks in advance for what I'm certain is going to be a well constructed understanding of this single exception to the rules of empiricism.

[ezed]

We are humans. Take our brain. What percentage do we use at this point in our evolution. Physicis, time and space. Is it all science, relegated to the extent of knowlege that humans have come up with?

But us humans have not traveled beyond our own moon. We sent probes with in our own solar system. But our own solar system is miniscule. And so is our knowledge.

We can think of God as all powerful, all knowing, and omnipotent! But that in itself is limited to our imagination of what is all powerful, all knowing and omnipotent.

insert_namehere, has an open mind and is not limiting himself to the current bundle of knowledge. When we limit our beliefs to what is known, we limit our evolution.

When you quote science, when you quote religion, you are boxing in your brain.

SmashysmashY, you've started something! Don't styfil it. let it take it's course. Maybe we'll advance beyond all the shit going on in the world.

Enough! The drugs are wearing off. Back to looking for pics!

Hey, think about that! All the theories on transexuals and those who like them! Are we ready to deal with such a topic? I don't know but physics and science certainly can't answer it.

[trish]

Yes! You put this much better than I could. If you are going to define something negatively, using negative terms like “supernatural” or “immaterial”, or concepts like “outside of time” there has to be something left over for the thing to be. Using these terms excludes everything from the universe of discourse so when you speak of these things you speak of nothing.

Thanks SmashysmashY. I would emphasize the proviso that the universe of discourse can be expanded, contracted or changed in any other way as long as the parties to the discussion understand and agree on what that universe is. I think that is exactly the problem we’re facing right now. You are being accused of restricting the discussion to scientific discourse where the universe would be physical universe of energy, matter and fields. Insert_namehere suggests expanding the domain of discussion but is unable to make clear what the expanded domain looks like. This presents an insurmountable difficulty when trying to ascertain the truth of a universal or existential proposition because the corresponding quantifiers range over the domain of discourse and there is no agreement on what that domain is. When the domain of discourse is so hopelessly undetermined there is a great temptation to beg the question by just assuming it could contain the entity whose possibility one is attempting to prove. Courteous people usually get around this sort of difficulty agreeing they don’t know fully what they’re talking about but still agree to talk about it, taking great care not to make assumptions. In this case if we agree to speak of things that transcend space and time, then we cannot speak of those things as if they could occupy space or take part in actions that have duration. Either the discussion will peter out because it remains to general and both parties will agree nothing meaningful can really be said, or through the discussion the parties will refine and further delineate the new domain of discussion.

[InHouston]

Do you believe in a god that is all powerful, all knowing, and created everything?

The reason that I ask this question is that if this god exists it would remove any responsibility from anyone else and place it all on the god. Let me explain:

If god created everything then everything was created by god, clearly.

If god is also all powerful then everything was created by god the way that god chose to create it and not another way, because go had the power to create it any way god wanted or not at all.

If god is also all knowing then everything was created by god the way that god chose and with god’s desired results, because if god wanted it to be a different way then god had the knowledge and the power to make it that way.

This creates a perfect circle of responsibility where nothing happens except for the things that god chooses to make happen and it does not leave room for anyone else to make choices. “But SmasysmashY, god created us with free will, that means we are all responsible for our own actions.” Yes, it would appear so at the outset wouldn’t it? But our three ifs actually preclude this as well.

Imagine that I created a robot, and I gave this robot free will, and I had nearly unlimited resources so I could have created this robot with any specifications. When I turn the robot on it prints a report of all the actions that it will ever engage in and I see that tomorrow at 13:00 hours the robot will pick up a hammer and hit my assistant in the face killing him instantly. I don’t make any adjustments and allow the robot to continue its existence unchanged. Who is responsible for the death, the robot or me?

If you haven’t figured it out I am god in this scenario and the robot is any person, and I am fully responsible in fact I could not be more responsible than I am because the death is a direct result of my actions, actions that I did not have to take, could have done differently, and knew exactly what the results would be. Of course for god it is much worse because I am only responsible for the robot and myself, but god’s responsibility would extend to everything including the existence of free will and its definition, parameters and the fact that anyone has it or that it even exists at all. This would make our creator god not only omnipotent and omniscient but also omni responsible.

To ask if God created the universe is to ask the wrong question because you’re humanizing the universe with man’s mythical ideas. A better question to ask is ‘how’ did the universe form into what it is now and not ‘who’ created it. And for that matter, the universe is so vast that creation may have nothing to do with it at all. No one knows if the universe was in fact created, although the Big Bangers will argue that position with their own fantastic version of creationism. Personally I find it hard to fathom that the entire universe was once compressed in a space smaller than an atom, and then suddenly exploded outward with the Big Bang … yeah.

In other words, if you find yourself getting caught up in the kind of conundrums you’re juggling here, then you’re more than likely way off course from arriving at the truth, because you’re asking the wrong questions. Why struggle with questions regarding a mythical entity (God) that doesn’t exist in the first place? Why? Why? Why?

As far as who is responsible for your robot’s aggravated assault with a hammer … that would be the programmer. This is the old “freewill vs. determinism debate”. However, robots don’t have freewill, and probably never will. If I bash someone on the head with a hammer, was that freewill on my part or some predetermined fate? Well … why not both? Is the glass half empty or full? It’s both. What came first the chicken or the egg? Neither … DNA preceded them both.

There is an answer for everything, even to some of the most baffling questions. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? No. There is no such thing as sound. Sound is the electrical interpretation by the brain of waves striking your ear drum. Outside the brain, sound does not exist.

What is the meaning of life? Complex carbon chemistry.

See? You can look at life in simple terms of sensible questions and reasonable answers based on known facts. Those questions that cannot yet be answered like “Where did the universe come from?”, are still being worked out.

Stay tuned.

[SmashysmashY]

insert_namehere

I really don’t want to put words in your mouth or thoughts in your head or however you would put it, but it seems to me that what you are saying is that you are being limited needlessly by the constraints of this discussion. But the question that you haven’t answered is what you would replace empiricism with exactly. I could assume what you would replace it with but then I’d be arguing with myself and I wouldn’t need you at all.

You asked if everyone has to make assumptions and I said yes. Everyone has to make assumptions but that doesn’t mean that we can make ones that contradict things we already know.

Now if you want to argue that gods of this sort don’t fit within this framework because it is flawed then you can do that but you’ll need to tell me what you would replace it with. If you are replacing it with intuition then great, you win, end of debate. God exists, and so does the grendel from beowulf, and the smurfs from that french cartoon. I could argue that intuition is not reliable but if you agree with that then I don’t understand how you are being unfairly limited here when you are using the most reliable method for determining the truth value of the claim. I didn’t decide to make the world work the way it does. I just pinched my nose and drank it down like most reasonable people do. If you find that too unpleasant then maybe this discussion isn’t for you. That’s cool; I’m not going to fault you for that.

[SmashysmashY]

Personally I find it hard to fathom that the entire universe was once compressed in a space smaller than atom, and then suddenly exploded outward with the Big Bang … yeah.

Maybe you find it hard to believe because you don't actually know what it is? Just throwing that out there. And what do you think you mean by big banger?

[InHouston]

Personally I find it hard to fathom that the entire universe was once compressed in a space smaller than atom, and then suddenly exploded outward with the Big Bang … yeah.

Maybe you find it hard to believe because you don't actually know what it is? Just throwing that out there. And what do you think you mean by big banger?

What I think I mean by 'Big Banger' is that I'm referring to those who subscribed to the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory is another form of Creationism. It removes God from the picture, which is fine for me, but leaves in the ‘fantastic’. Yes, it seems that galaxies are moving away from each other in all directions, but that doesn’t prove that it was the result of some initial cosmic explosion from a primeval atom. I find it peculiar too that the Big Bang was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, who just so happened to be a Belgian priest; one who would have the proclivity to subscribe to creationism.

Think about it.

[guyone]

I don't think God appreciates this line of conversation.

[SmashysmashY]

What I think I mean by 'Big Banger' is that I'm referring to those who subscribed to the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory is another form of Creationism. It removes God from the picture, which is fine for me, but leaves in the ‘fantastic’. Yes, it seems that galaxies are moving away from each other in all directions, but that doesn’t prove that it was the result of some initial cosmic explosion from a primeval atom. I find it peculiar too that the Big Bang was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, who just so happened to be a Belgian priest; one who would have the proclivity to subscribe to creationism.

Think about it.

Well, I see a couple problems with this. First, a priest can be a scientist and you shouldn’t assume that if a priest says something they are speaking about god necessarily. He didn’t say the theory of how god made the universe expand, and he's not the only contributor anyway. Also I think you are confusing classic big bang theory with the theory of inflation. The big bang theory doesn’t actually describe a creation of anything in the way you seem to be using the word (I addressed this on page 2) so it is not a form of creationism. And finally if you disagree with the method of extrapolating the current conditions in the universe backward in time to determine what happened then how do you propose cosmologists should go about it?

[trish]

In actual fact many theologians were thrilled that the Big Bang theory triumphed over Bondi & Hoyle's competing steady state theory because at least the Big Bang had a finite past. However, unfortunately for those theologians, the Big Band IS NOT another creation story, since the theory explicitly says there is no first moment. It's just an account of the cosmic expansion. The primeval atom theory by the way never got off the ground. I do agree that the theory contends the early universe had fantastic energy density. But then the observed universe is pretty fantastic as well (what with a super black hole at the center of our own galaxy, and quasar jets twice as long as a galaxy is wide streaming out from the centers of other distant galaxies, planets ensconced in biomass etc. etc.) Fantastic doesn't always mean not believable and certainly doesn't always mean not true.


Yes, it seems that galaxies are moving away from each other in all directions, but that doesn’t prove that it was the result of some initial cosmic explosion from a primeval atom.

No it doesn’t. Especially since it isn’t what the Big Bang contends. But it is evidence that universe was expanding for as long ago as we can see (for when the Hubble telescope peers into deep space it’s looking backwards in time). But expansion is also consistent with the steady-state universe. There's other evidence to consider: the background radiation predicted by the Big Bang theory and not the Steady State theory, the atomic abundances predicted by the Big Bang theory and not the Steady State theory, the inherent instability of all the general relativistic models that exhibit steady state behavior, etc.

But all this brings us back to science and I had the distinct feeling ezed and insert_namehere wanted to take this conversation in a different direction.

[ezed]

I don't think God appreciates this line of conversation.

I disagree. I think God would find this discussion very refreshing. It's his creatures using their brains for something useful.