ex-preacher

luvluv, How would you rate the morality of a parent or god who stood by and watched while a child drowned in feces?

David Ortgiesen

Philosoft, I am confident that every physicist, astronomer, astrophysicist, mathematician, etc., would disagree with the observation that we live in an orderly universe is arbitrary. The actions of atoms, planets and stars may be predicted based upon observable phenomena and mathematical formulae. This is order by anyone's definition.
Thank God( )our predecessors did not believe that trying to determine the existence of something for which we have no concept is an excercise in futility and logically meaningless. If they did, we'd still be living in caves and eating raw meat. Besides, the concept of a supreme being is historically well established.
As for my belief in a supreme being, it is established on the belief that none of this observable, predictable order has come about by accident.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: David Ortgiesen ]</p>

HRG

[quote]Originally posted by David Ortgiesen:
[QB]Philosoft, I am confident that every physicist, astronomer, astrophysicist, mathematician, etc., would disagree with the observation that we live in an orderly universe is arbitrary. The actions of atoms, planets and stars may be predicted based upon observable phenomena and mathematical formulae. This is order by anyone's definition.
[quote]
No. It is simply the indepence of physical mechanisms of the space-time point where you happen to do the experiments. Any correlation can be called "order" a posteriori.
(BTW, I am a mathematical physicist).
So is the concept of man-eating dragons.
You assume that the default state of the universe - in the absence of an "orderer" . is "pure chaos". Why ? Systems can be self-organizing.

I can argue equally well that the patterns we observe are best explained by the absence of intermeddling superior beings which could disturb the natural regularity of the universe.

HRG.

Philosoft

Very well, I'll stipulate to this definition: "Having a systematic arrangement"; but not this one: "Free from disorder" or this one: "Marked by or adhering to method or system." Fair?

<strong> Surely you jest. Do you understand what I mean when I say "no concept"?

<strong> I don't understand how the practices of hut-building and meat-cooking developed from "no concept." The analogy doesn't even work. These are processes that can be learned by induction. God is allegedly a thing. All things have associated concepts except, apparently, God.

<strong> The only thing that's historically established is that there's a widely held notion that something created the universe. The only attributes ever given for this something are fundamentally inscrutable. The word "God," if it describes a thing, ought to be accompanied by a picture in my head of a particular thing or an example of a general thing, but this never happens. Do you have a picture of God in your head when you say "God"?

<strong> First, like I said, I'm not going to stipulate to any definition of "order" that implies what you are trying to prove. All "order" is not "design."

Second, your ability to summarize the entire history of the universe by the word "accident" is predicated in arrogance. I suspect you are a priori opposed to a worldview that denies ultimate purpose but that's just the psychologist talking.

Wyrdsmyth

Is not seeing leprechauns good grounds for not believing in leprechauns?

Just because you don't see them, isn't enough reason to not believe in them. Don't you trust in the first-hand accounts of your Irish ancestors? Leprechauns are (1) well-documented and (2) rooted in history and (3) sightings can be tied to specific geographical locations.

You don't see black holes or superstrings yet you believe in them. And superstrings don't even make sense -- it's just a lot of weird physics.

I think anyone who doesn't believe in leprechauns is in serious denial, and is ignoring a veritable mountain of evidence in the form of Irish family folklore. If you people want to live in denial all your life, be my guest.

Typhon

luvluv sez

Luvluv, your reasoning is off here I would say, way off, for a number of reasons. Foremost among the flaws in your analogy is the simple fact that Hamlet and Macbeth are like ALL characters of fiction, not living, thinking, or even aware beings. Of course they can not "find" evidence of the author, unless that is written into the story. As for that, there are plenty of tales which involve the characters becoming aware that they are just characters, and that some force (the writer) is changing, scripting, and creating their lives as they go. The fact remains, Shakespeare is just words, ink on pages, written in a symbolic character set that other living, cognitive beings can read. The only reason to think you statement would be true, would be if we were only that, flat, unliving, unthinking characters in some story. I for one, am fairly certain this is NOT the case. There is no reason to suspect that if a god did exist, that it could not manifest itself in a way that was "findable" in the physical universe. Certainly there is no reason based upon your odd analogy.
It makes as much sense for a being to inhabit the plane he is claimed to have created, as not. Say god created the cosmos, what was there before the creation? Most lines of theology hold for there to be nothing, a void, an absence of thingness. The universe is created, but the god doesn't then normally retreat back into the nothingness, and in fact, by most accounts, the universe is exactly that which replaces it. Most pantheons, including that of the many Christians cults and sects, do not traditionally hold their god to exist OUTSIDE and separate from its creation. Even the location of the afterlife, where their god is said to dwell, is conceivably part of the creation. Historically, Christians used to think of heaven and hell as having real, physical locations, just like the garden of Eden, in relationship to the world, but then they also thought the world was flat, the sky a crystal sphere, and the planets "wandering stars." Regardless, why would a god need to exist outside its creation?
Then your argument is poorly formed and as far as I can see, arbitrary at best, nonsensical at worst. WHY should we not expect to find that being within the medium of creation. You seem to be arguing for an absentee landlord of a god, but without any evidence or even theory, to support your claim. Even according to the scriptures and theology of Christianity, there is no reason to suspect this, and much to argue otherwise. It is a frequent point in the history of Christianity that their god interacts with the physical world and frequently reveals his presence, gets his hands dirty, and otherwise muddles about in his creation. Hardly the actions of some blind watchmaker who retreated to the Void after finishing off the cosmic pocket watch.
No, you have not shown that at all. First, you have been unable to give even a good reason why we would expect a god to exist outside its creation. Sure it could exist before it, and after it, and sideways of it. It could exist across a number of creations or even have retreated back into nothingness. It could exist in my tea-cup or in the lint in my jacket pocket. However, none of these is any more probable than any other (and some perhaps less, based on the scriptures and dogma of the various religions of the world). At the very least, the god of the Judeo-Christian faith is held to frequently intervene, meddle, and visit its creation. The effects of these, should be detectable at the very least, in the physical universe. No surprise, that they are not.
Just about ANY complex system is MORE than the sum of its parts. That is such an argument from ignorance that I hardly know where to start. The reason why a jet airplane can fly is not magic. It is the interaction of lift and velocity. The reason a computer can run simulations is not magic. It is the interaction of miniaturized circuitry and complex algorithms. Take either system, break them down into their parts, and throw them in a box, and OF COURSE neither will function the same, in such a "sum of its parts" state. Much with the human brain. It is not just the number of neurons and synapses that determine the complexity of our brain, but the way they are wired and interact. Turn some of them off, destroy others, deprive them of electrical activity, and the brain is so much a box of computer parts or an inert, broken jet engine. The fact is, we understand a lot about how thoughts are formed, where they are formed, and what affects them. We can even record the changes in electrical patterns of the brain, which show the differences between people on drugs, who have brain damage or defects, or even, changes in mood or emotion. Drugs, physical tampering, and a host of other methods, can be used to change and modify "thoughts." Human consciousness is NOT mysterious at all. Talk to a half-way competent neurologist and he'll tell you this. Do we understand the brain as well as we do a jet engine? Of course not, the brain is much more complex and its parts smaller (cellular, chemical, and even molecular and genetic components). Already though, we are developing molecular computers and chemical machines, so in all likelihood, it is only a matter of time before our already substantial understanding of the brain progresses even farther. You have yet to show why human consciousness is unfathomable or mysterious to anyone but yourself.
By this reasoning the Tooth Fairy may still yet exist. And this is disingenuous as well, as we CAN detect the specific contents of our thoughts, I know I certainly can. I'm also aware that they are my thoughts, that they come from my head, and are a product of my own electrical and chemical interactions with the world around me. Some people suffering from various states of damaged brain activity or under the influence of certain chemicals can not, this is true. We in general would call this a delusional state of mind. No surprise that this often mistaken for "religious" states of communication. Sufferers of schizophrenia often think that they are in touch with thoughts and beings from outside their own consciousness, and in fact, many can not tell what are their own thoughts and what originate from outside. Again, this is abnormal brain activity, not proof that consciousness is mysterious and of an unknown origin.
But the absence of that evidence, is not a mark of confidence in proving the existence of such a god. The god of the Bible is at least held to have been able and chosen to manifest, detectable by the standards of the time, tangible evidence of its existence and will. That now, those manifestations have either disappeared or the standards of proof raised beyond our ability to objectively test them, seems ludicrous. There are many areas of science where we have not the means to fully observe the phenomena. In those regions however, we often are able to infer a lot of the behavior based on what we can observe, making room to change our theories as more information is gathered and techniques for observation increase in effectiveness. Not detecting any evidence of an object or its interaction with the physical world, is a very good reason to discount its likely existence until evidence otherwise is discovered. I do not believe in faeries or unicorns for just the reason. Yes, no one can prove that they don't absolutely exist or have existed in the past, but many people have tried, and all the searches have turned up not a single shred of hard evidence (or even observable behavior that might be the results of un-detectible faeries or invisible (pink) unicorns), so I have a high degree of confidence that they do not exist. Should one suddenly appear on your garden path, please do detain it and let me know. I'll send a team to research it and will be quite delighted to find out that such a fantastic thing of imagination exists, though you must forgive me that until then, I remain most skeptical of their dubious existence.
No, but you either were or you are lying to me. It is a very simple logical equation. It is the same with your "communication with God." You are either communication with a god or else you are lying. By lying, you could be doing so with full knowledge that you are not communicating with a god, you could be suffering a delusion, much like a patient who thinks that some outside force, such as their neighbor or the TV, is broadcasting thoughts into their head or even the simple case of fanciful or wishful thinking, or you could be simply consider thinking out loud in your head (no one is really communicating back) and getting a "feel" or a euphoric or emotional state, is communication with your god. In the latter case, this is likewise easily explainable by means of normal, brain chemistry. It is very easy to feel touched by the "supernatural" and its effects can even be reproduced in laboratory experiments. So, then, what we're left with is not whether you were thinking about calling me and I can detect that (I don't really need to, you're the one that should be able to tell whether you were or were not dependent on the many factors I mentioned above), but whether I think you're telling the truth. If it is something important, than I want to have a high degree of certainty that you are, such as corroborating evidence, repeatability, independent testing, and some more tangible proof or observable behavior. In the case of pining my personal hopes and societal interactions on some fanciful cosmic fairy tale, I want some REALLY good supporting evidence for this, not just your word.
That does not follow. Your argument here is specious. If you'd like to debate the silly theory of Intelligent Design, take it up in another post.
Yes you CAN prove that thoughts exist. You can in the behavior, observation, and descriptions of those who have thoughts. If you are lying, then you are just presenting bad data, not a lack of it. There are ways to corroborate and verify, base on actions, behavior, and yes, physical detection. If you were the ONLY person who claimed to have thoughts, then yes, you might have a rough time proving they existed. But there are numbers of people who have thoughts, some, on a regular basis. There is a lot we can say about thoughts, and their visible manifestation in statements, acts, and chemical and electrical activity. We can even tell when people are dreaming. This suggests a high degree of probability that thoughts exist. If we can not always tell if you're lying or not about the specific contents of your cognitive process, well, that's hardly a reason to "disprove' anything.
Sure it does. Your thoughts influence your body, and your body influences your thoughts. If you're lying, you may well be nervous, something that a lie detector can to a degree of accuracy, pick up. If your body is hungry or on fire, your thoughts are likely to be determined in this manner, "eat some food, run around shouting and screaming."
No you are saying that you alone are privy to the CONTENT and veracity of your thoughts. Science is able to detect the presence of your brain's activity, and even tell a lot about its nature, state, health, and general function. Also, if your brain was damaged or malfunctioning for a variety of reasons, or even in certain states of more benign or naturally occurring heightened or depressed activity, you might indeed "question" if the thought was your own or from outside of yourself. This is very, very, very common for many people, who suffer greatly from this very simple failure to tell what is their own thought and what is not. The fact that you are confident that your thoughts exist, is not just because you have them in the vacuum of your head. You think and importantly, act on your thoughts. You are able to communicate your thoughts to other thinking beings, and very critical, confirm on a daily basis that your thoughts are real and not the product of mere fantasy. Say you see a red ball, and you think "red ball" or even something more abstract, like "clown's nose." I'm standing next to you and I say, "wow, that's a red ball" or "looks like a clown's nose, eh?" This confirms to you that your thought was valid, and more importantly, shared. This has happened to you all your life, having been raised and taught by other thinking beings. Had you grown up completely isolated from all other thinking creatures, you might have a much harder time saying much about your "thoughts." So again, you can say that you think god exists, just as you can say you think you think thoughts. However, unlike the latter, I think god doesn't. So now, you need some corroborative evidence to suggest that he does, or else, I am liable to remain unconvinced. If there was mountains of evidence to suggest that you did not have the means to create words and pictures in response to stimuli in your brain and yet claimed you did, then I would require much the same thing.
This is evidence, but unfortunately, of the poor and refutable sort. As your prophets do not currently exist and the factual record of even their historical veracity weak, nonexistent, or debated, they are a poor source to base your argument on. Your own revelations are like whether you thought of calling me, not sufficient without stringent testing. You could easily be lying, be deluded, or simply jumping to conclusions that are not borne out through more rational, empirical testing.
But simply because he could, is not reason to infer that he does. Again, your playwright example is a poor one, as even a scripted version of the author is no more a thinking, aware presence, than are his penned characters.
This last statement makes no sense. What are you trying to say here? Because we can imagine that something could exist, which we could not detect or otherwise observe its interaction with our universe, does not make it so.

.T.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

David Ortgiesen

Hello, Philosoft. Your definition of order works just fine for me.
Perhaps I don't know what you mean by 'concept', but I mean "something conceived in the mind, a thought, idea or notion" as defined in Webster. An image is not necessary for a concept, but I do think the bearded guy is kind of cute .
As to my worldview, I don't know if there's a purpose or not, but it would seem rather senseless to me if there isn't one. Maybe we'll eventually find out. I personally am not going to sweat it.
We could go on like this forever, but I have a life. It's been fun, I'm outta here.

luvluv

MadMorrigan:

"Humans don't know how to make babies that don't shit themselves. (yet) Presumably, god does, and also had the power to do so. Or maybe you worship a mamby pamby god that can make us breathe air instinctively, but can't make us use a toilet instinctively."

As I said in other threads, the belief in God's ominipotence does not include the belief that God can do things that are intrinsically impossible. I do not believe that God can give human beings free will and act to ensure that they never use that free will to harm other people (which is what the crapping on themselves refers to in this analogy). So God could create a universe in which no one ever hurts anyone else, or he can create a universe in which everyone has free will. To do both in the same universe is an intrinsic impossibility.

daemon:

"Of course, this completely fails to address David Gould's arguments. His argument was not that a creator must exist within its creation, but that belief in such a creator is unwarranted unless said creator can be detected."

I don't understand this. If a creator has access to another plane of existence other than the one He created, and since we do not know that He would exist in the plane He created, why would we ever expect to detect Him?

My argument was that it is not a rational expectation for the creator to be present in our universe. He does not HAVE to be present, therefore his absence does not provide any evidence for or against his existence. There is no reason for us to expect Him to be present in his creation.

What I was trying for in my original analogy was to point out that it makes no more sense for us to expect God's primary existence to be in his own creation than we would expect Charles Schultz, for example, to choose to live in his Peanuts comic strip.

If Charles had the power to create and give life to an animated world, the way we presume a Creator God has the power to create our world, would we assume that Charles would want to establish primary residency in that world? He might or he might not, but his absence from that world would not prove or disprove his existence. It would be, from an evidentary standpoint, totally useless information: no conclusion could be drawn from it.

ex-preacher:

"luvluv, How would you rate the morality of a parent or god who stood by and watched while a child drowned in feces?"

Like MadMorrigan, you are mixing the analogies out to the point where your questions are non-sequitors. Please read my previous response to him, and my response to him in this post. The crap analogy was meant as a response to Khvalion whose objections were on totally different grounds.

But this raises a further confusion I have with you in particular as a poster: is it your contention that God does not exist or that He exists and is immoral. You seem to fluctuate in your posts, but generally you give the impression that it is the latter.

Wyrdsmyth:

Mildly amusing, but a dodge. You are using an old trick, associating the belief in God with the belief in the ridiculous, thus creating the impression that to believe in God must be to believe in the ridiculous. It's mildly amusing the first 30 or so times I've heard it (on this board alone) but it doesn't really contribute to the argument.

Unless you currently have the technology to detect everything which exists, you can't even establish that God cannot be detected. And with the implications of a Creator and a Created medium, the expectation of a created medium being able to detect a creator is not reasonable. The Creator may allow Himself to be detected or He may not, but if we have no access to his medium we should not expect to detect Him.

As a side note, has anyone ever read the book "Flatland"?

Typhon:

"There is no reason to suspect that if a god did exist, that it could not manifest itself in a way that was "findable" in the physical universe."

Yes, but that is a question of the creator's willingness to make himself findable, not on the creatures ability to find the Creator. As a Christian, of course I believe God can make himself findable, but it does not follow that we would have the means to detect Him should He not wish to be detected.

You seem to argue that because we cannot find Him, He therefore does not exist. I am saying that if He exists, there is no reason for us to believe that we could find him under our own power. Therefore, the fact that we cannot detect him is no grounds upons which to draw a conclusion.

"It makes as much sense for a being to inhabit the plane he is claimed to have created, as not. Say god created the cosmos, what was there before the creation? Most lines of theology hold for there to be nothing, a void, an absence of thingness."

I don't hold to that line of theology. I believe that God has always existed, and that his "universe" is seperate to ours. I cannot defend what others believe. Your appear to be arguing with them about a theory I hold. I don't see how that moves us forward here.

"Regardless, why would a god need to exist outside its creation?"

It is implied in the act of creation that God would have had to have his initial existence outside the universe. After that, he could live in the universe or he could not live in the universe, it is up to Him. I am not saying that He definitely does not live in this universe, but that He does not have to.

In my opinion, the burden of proof is on you. If you do not believe in God because he is not detectable in this physical universe, then it is you who must provide proof that he must be detectable in this physical universe to be said to exist. Otherwise, as I have said, the fact that we cannot detect him is non-conclusive.

"WHY should we not expect to find that being within the medium of creation"

Again, why WOULD we expect to find him within the medium of his creation. You are the one who seems to hold the position that God's absence from this physical universe is conclusive proof of something, while I hold it is non-conclusive. So for you to be able to make the conclusion that God's (apparent) absence from our physical universe is conclusive proof that he does not exist, you, sir, must provide why we must expect to be able to detect God in this physical universe. Otherwise, your conclusion is invalid.

"Even according to the scriptures and theology of Christianity, there is no reason to suspect this, and much to argue otherwise."

The first few books of Genesis seem clearly to imply a God (and others) who exists before the universe was created.

"It is a frequent point in the history of Christianity that their god interacts with the physical world and frequently reveals his presence, gets his hands dirty, and otherwise muddles about in his creation."

Again, I never argued that God COULD NOT interact with the physical world. As a Christian, I believe He does. But that is different from being DETECTABLE objectively, by us. He may choose, occasionally, to make Himself known to certain ones of us. But that does not amount to him being consistently detectable BY US. God can reveal Himself to us (by a voice in our head, or by special revelation, for example), and still not be detectable by scientific means. He can reach us, that is not in dispute, but what is in dispute is whether or not we should have the expectation that we can reach him through the means available to us in this universe.

"First, you have been unable to give even a good reason why we would expect a god to exist outside its creation"

Again, I am not drawing a conclusion one way or the other from God's (apparent) absence, so it is you who must prove that in order to exist, God must be detectable in our universe.

My argument about the mind was that we cannot detect it scientifically CURRENTLY, yet we CURRENTLY know it exists. Therefore, there may be things which we cannot detect, yet which exists. This is the extent of my argument about the mind. Yes we may ONE DAY find a complete conversion chart about the brain, but that does not change the fact that we currently have no means of doing so yet we know it exists.

I am not saying that because we can't explain the brain then God must have made it. I am only offering proof that there are things that exist which cannot be objectively detected.

"But the absence of that evidence, is not a mark of confidence in proving the existence of such a god."

Never said it was.

"Yes you CAN prove that thoughts exist. "

You can through circumstantial evidence and from shared subjectivity prove that in general, thoughts exist. But you cannot ever prove that my SPECIFIC, CURRENT thoughts exist.

The thoughts CURRENTLY in my head (i.e. What a beautiful day) DO EXIST. But you cannot detect them. Therefore things exist that cannot be detected.

"No you are saying that you alone are privy to the CONTENT and veracity of your thoughts."

Fine, but the CONTENT of my thoughts DOES EXIST, and cannot be detected by scientific means.

All in all typhon, I would like for you to argue two points:

1) Why a Creator would have to be detectable in the medium He created.

2) If you agree with me that He does not have to be detectable within the medium He created, that He could or could not be as He chose, then why are you saying that the fact that we cannot detect Him is a good reason for not believing in Him.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

snatchbalance

Luvluv

I hope you don't mind me wieghing in here.

First, Hamlet and Macbeth are fictional characters. the actors that play them can find WS. When WS was alive, he could find them. The actors that is, not H or Mac, because they are fictional. No problem.

It's kind of why people can't seem to find god, in all likeyhood, it is a convenient fiction.

As far as your conversations and such with G, a more plausible explanation, other than G being in an alternate, undectable dimension; is some sort of delusion on your part. Remember we do have a brain, with all sorts of connections and networks, that can be effected by all sorts of external and internal stimulus. If you pray to G long and hard enough, I don't doubt that you will eventually hear from from G.

Like you said, no one can detect the actual content of your thoughts. Your thoughts of G may exist, or not, that's up to you. But if you're trying to get others to by off on thier validity...well, what can you show me?

Snatchbalance

Philosoft

Nouns are either persons, places, things or ideas. God is neither a place nor (allegedly) an idea. Therefore, God is either a thing or a person, which is a special case of 'thing.' With that in mind, can you name a thing or alleged thing for which you can have no mental picture? If not, then I submit that to assume God is a concept at all is special pleading because no other concepts behave this way.