owlafaye

A rather simplistic question.

If 100's of thousands of men over time have sought out God and none have seen him. I would say there is cause unchanging to believe he does not exist. Since that IS the case...ergo: No God!

The arguments for God, one and all, continue to be mocked, reviled and ridiculed...that will never change either.

The whole concept of God and jesus is straight out of Hollywood. Kids go for it in a big way, just like the tooth fairy...problem is; religionists have never grown up...just immature, insecure, scared individuals...kowtowing to their church clergy and members in an endless finger pointing guilt contest.

Goofy conduct bordering on if not mental disorder.

owl

Theli

Amen

luvluv

copernicus says:

"It is like saying that if Shakespeare created the world of his plays, we ought to have reasonably verifiable proof that he existed. And we do. Not so for God, despite Ross's unsupported and gratuitous claim that Jesus' historical existence is verifiable."

Yes, WE can prove Shakespeare exists, because we inhabit his world. But the characters in Shakespeare's plays cannot find any evidence of his existence within the world of the play. In the analogy, you and I are to God as Hamlet and Macbeth are to Shakespeare. Just as Hamlet can search forever and never find Shakespeare physically in the world Shakespeare created, you and I can search forever and never find God in the world He created.

"I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to claim that God created himself out of nothing."

Not what I said. I said that it doesn't make sense for a being that inhabits a plane to claim to have created the plane that He exists in. If He created it, his initial existence must have been outside of it, i.e. there must be something in addition to what he claims to have created. Therefore, it does not make any sense to say that because you cannot find physical evidence of God in a medium He created, that therefore God does not exist. That statement is only supportable if it is known that said medium (the universe) is the only medium that exists.

"It also doesn't make sense to claim that God exists when there is no verifiable way to detect his existence. If that is true, then any imaginary being can be said to exist."

Not true. My argument is that if a being claims to have created a medium, we should not expect to find that being within the medium he created. This would not constitute an argument for the existence of that being. It would simply state that disbelief in that being on the specific grounds that you cannot detect him are not valid, because He must exist, or at least have access to, something beyond what He created (in this case the universe) in order to have created it.

Beyond that, this argument only applies to beings who claim to have created the universe from a place outside of the universe. Not every imaginary being makes that claim. Furthermore, you could have some other form of evidence against the belief in God that might be valid. My argument does not in any way prove the existence of God.

But the specific argument that if God exists we ought to be able to detect him in this physical universe is an invalid argument.

"Of course there is an observable chemical and electrical connection between the brain and your stream of thoughts. Shock treatment certainly can affect your "stream of thoughts", and it can be administered electrically or chemically. Drugs of all kinds can be used to affect thoughts."

This is the last time I will adress this type of argument, because I know full well you are well aware of what my argument is. I know that electricity and chemicals can affect the brain, I could affect someones brain by slamming a hammer against it. That does not explain how an electircal current or a chemical can produce the thought "What a beautiful day". The fact that an electric shock can effect consciousness is not suprising, but we still cannot explain human conciousness, i.e. our thoughts, totally within the framework of chemical reactions and electrical signals. The human brain is more than the sum of it's parts.


"Argument from Personal Incredulity: I can't conceive of any natural explanation for this phenomenon, so it must have a supernatural explanation."

Again, you are totally misrepresenting my argument. I am not arguing that the presence of a conciousness proves that a God exists. I am saying that because we cannot objectively or empirically nail detect the specific contents of our thoughts, and yet we know them to exist, that seems to prove that just because we cannot scientifically prove the existence of something empirically, it may still yet exist.

I am not here attempting to prove the existence of God. I am endeavoring to show you that the fact that you cannot detect any evidence of His existence is not sufficient grounds to come to the conclusion that He definitely does not exist. That proposition would entail the conclusion that you currently have the technology to detect, objectively, everything that exists.

"All of us can observe our own thoughts."

That's a subjective argument. Yes all of us can observe our own thoughts, like I can observe my own communication with God. But I cannot prove to you MY thoughts exist, you must accept that by faith. If I say to you "I was thinking about calling you" there is nothing in the universe which could objectively confirm or dispute this. You have no way of knowing with scientific certainty that I was indeed thinking about calling you. There is no way you can search the electrical current in my brain or the chemicals analysis of my brain and find those thoughts there.

"We can infer the existence of other thinking beings by observing similarities between their behavior and the thoughts that drive our own behavior."

I could also infer that the DNA molecule appears to have been designed, therfore there must be a Designer. But that hardly rises to the level of scientific proof, which is what we are discussing here. Inferences are subjective, and are not acceptable within the realm of science when we are talking about proving or disproving something.

"I don't have to prove to you that your own mind exists, and it is pretty obviously affected by the physical state of the body."

I don't see how that statement at all effects my position. No, you don't HAVE to prove to me my mind exists... but the question is not whether you must prove to me that my mind exists but whether or not you CAN. I am arguing against the notion that because we cannot detect something it does not exist. I am saying that the fact that I cannot prove my thoughts exist to anyone else, and yet I know them to exist, would seem to disprove the sheerly materialist position.

Again, the fact that the mind is affected by the condition of the body does not have any bearing on my position.

"Try to understand what you are saying. You are saying that we can directly observe our own thoughts. Then you are saying that our thoughts cannot be observed."

I am saying that I can know my own thoughts exist. But I cannot prove to you that my thoughts exist. I can observe my own thoughts, but that does not translate into objective truth. Again, as I said above, I might observe myself thinking the thoughts "I should call my girlfriend". But she would have no means of knowing whether or not that thought actually transpired in my head.

I am saying MY thoughts, the words and pictures that are currently travelling through my mind, are not objectively detectable in the same way that magnetism or gravity or other phenomena are. I cannot prove them to you, as you would ask me to prove the existence of God to you. Yet, I know they exist.

Theli:

"If you wan't to specify wich god he must leave some sort of trace.
The strange thing about your argument is that the more you argue for god being undetectable the more questionable your own belief becomes.
If god is undetectable, how do you know he even existed?"

First, I would argue that God did leave a trace, but He did it by directly communicating with certain human beings, called in my religion prophets. I know God exists through faith and through my personal relationship with Him. I believe He communicates with me pretty often, and that He answers my prayers. But it would be possible for Him to do all those things and still not have his principle existence in this universe. I.E. he could be undetectable in this universe and still communicate his presence to people if he choose. Just as Shakespeare could write a version of himself into his plays, (as a voice from Heaven or as an actual character)but "all" of Shakespeare would not be in the character in the play. His principle existence would still be outside of it.

"To say that (for example) the christian god exists and then claim that he's undetectable is a contradiction in itself."

Only if we know with 100% certainty that we currently have the means to detect everything which exists everywhere in every universe possible universe.

luvluv

owl:

"If 100's of thousands of men over time have sought out God and none have seen him. "

Not true, hundreds millions claim to have seen Him, or to have heard from Him directly in some way. I'll include myself in this. I believe I hear directly from God. Not auditorially, but inwardly.

luvluv

Copernicus:

"You are preaching to the choir, Theli. If one can accept the concept of an uncreated god, then one can accept the concept of an uncreated universe. The Original Cause argument is completely vacuous."

Except that everything we can currently observe about matter leads us to believe that it cannot create itself out of nothing. We have not ever observed matter creating itself out of nothing. We have even constructed basic scientific principles that state that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore if something must be self-existent, it would be logical to conclude that that something is not matter, but something else.

copernicus

Originally posted by luvluv:
<strong>Yes, WE can prove Shakespeare exists, because we inhabit his world. But the characters in Shakespeare's plays cannot find any evidence of his existence within the world of the play...</strong>

Gadzooks, unworthyone! Alfred Hitchcock appeared in every one of his movies, and Shakespeare could have written himself in as a character. Furthermore, actors know that they are acting in a play and that someone wrote the lines that they must memorize. There is no evidence even remotely like that for the existence of a god in our own real-life "play". You keep insisting that there is no evidence where evidence is everywhere to be found.

"It also doesn't make sense to claim that God exists when there is no verifiable way to detect his existence. If that is true, then any imaginary being can be said to exist."

Not true. My argument is that if a being claims to have created a medium, we should not expect to find that being within the medium he created. This would not constitute an argument for the existence of that being. It would simply state that disbelief in that being on the specific grounds that you cannot detect him are not valid, because He must exist, or at least have access to, something beyond what He created (in this case the universe) in order to have created it.

Unworthyone, please try to read what you write with a critical eye. All I said was that you can imagine any type of being and claim that it is the "creator" of any phenomenon. Nobody is required to disprove the existence of imaginary beings, and they don't come into existence simply because the phenomenon exists. Now, if you presuppose that God is not imaginary, I can see your logic. You have simply begged the question.


Beyond that, this argument only applies to beings who claim to have created the universe from a place outside of the universe. Not every imaginary being makes that claim. Furthermore, you could have some other form of evidence against the belief in God that might be valid. My argument does not in any way prove the existence of God.

I'm with you on this one. I agree that not every imaginary being claims to have created the universe. And I agree that yours does make such a claim. I also agree that your argument does not in any way prove the existence of God. I am glad that we can agree on some things.


But the specific argument that if God exists we ought to be able to detect him in this physical universe is an invalid argument.

That is not the argument. The argument is that there is no reasonable evidence to suggest that God exists in just the same way that there is no reasonable evidence to suggest that Santa Claus exists. I can't disprove Santa Claus's existence, but that does not strengthen my faith in his existence. It is reasonable to assume that if God exists we ought to be able to detect him. If we can't, then we have no reasonable evidence for him. Or Santa Claus, for that matter. QED

This is the last time I will adress this type of argument, because I know full well you are well aware of what my argument is. I know that electricity and chemicals can affect the brain, I could affect someones brain by slamming a hammer against it. That does not explain how an electircal current or a chemical can produce the thought "What a beautiful day". The fact that an electric shock can effect consciousness is not suprising, but we still cannot explain human conciousness, i.e. our thoughts, totally within the framework of chemical reactions and electrical signals. The human brain is more than the sum of it's parts.

I think that we both understand each other's argument, but we disagree on who is missing the point. We don't need to "explain" consciousness in order to know that it is contingent on material reality. We observe that physical conditions alter states of consciousness. It is reasonable to conclude that consciousness is grounded in the physical condition of the brain, since we can only detect it in connection with functioning brains. You may choose to believe that consciousness can exist independently of a brain, but you have no evidence for it.


Again, you are totally misrepresenting my argument. I am not arguing that the presence of a conciousness proves that a God exists. I am saying that because we cannot objectively or empirically nail detect the specific contents of our thoughts, and yet we know them to exist, that seems to prove that just because we cannot scientifically prove the existence of something empirically, it may still yet exist.

There you go again. You claim to observe your thoughts, but you claim not to have evidence that they exist. I can offer you no better proof than your own words.


I am not here attempting to prove the existence of God. I am endeavoring to show you that the fact that you cannot detect any evidence of His existence is not sufficient grounds to come to the conclusion that He definitely does not exist.

Who claimed that and what is the point? It is no better than my claiming that you have insufficient evidence to disprove Santa Claus's existence. Your evidence against Santa Claus's existence is insufficient, you know--or do you?

I could also infer that the DNA molecule appears to have been designed, therfore there must be a Designer.

No you can't. For crying out loud, how many times do I have to urge you to read Dawkins? What are you afraid of? Losing your innocence? I hope so. It is a worthless thing to possess.

Kvalhion

Why should they even look, Luvluv? The world the characters of Shakespeare live in is a self sustaining world with its own laws and properties. What you appear to be saying is that the characters in Shakespeare should stop what they are doing and change the way they behave so that they can discover their God and thus change the world they live in. What makes you think that the characters Shakespeare created are not exactly what he wanted the characters to be?

Think about it. You believe that God created the world and people. Yet you also believe that humans are somehow not what God wanted them to be, and now they have to change the properties of who they are to appease God. Doesn't that sound a bit nonsensical? If a character Shakespeare had created turned out not to be what Shakespeare intended, would he start to admonish the character for being flawed and set in motion rules to follow? Or, since he created the story in the first place, wouldn't he just simply fix what was wrong?

This is what religion basically boils down to. Created or not, it is logical to believe human beings are exactly what they were meant to be. Humans are prideful, generous, selfish, violent, kind, giving, loving, hating, jealous, angry, patient, and a number of other characteristics. You seem to think we are flawed, and thus must change our own properties that were given to us by your God or through natural selection. There is simply no logical reason to believe we should become anything other than what we are.

What we can examine is what we believe ourselves to be, and how our actions are influenced by such beliefs.

Shakespeare's stories would be much less compelling if all his characters started grovelling on their knees hoping to appease Shakespeare so that their lives could be more suited to what they want. Take a look at the world around you. Doesn't that apply here and now?

Pomp

luvluv,

Nontheless, there is no observable chemical or electrical connection between the physical matter in your brain and the stream of thoughts in your head.

I beg to differ. The fact that beings without electro-chemical action in the brain are not observed to display thinking behavior is evidence of a connection between the two.

You cannot tell me how electrical currents in your brain form the thought "What a beautiful day".

I also can't tell you how gravity works, but I can observe that gravity does work, and make testable predictions based on that observation. Likewise, neurologists can make observations based on observed data about brain chemostry and make testable predictions based on those observations.

In fact, there is nothing in the universe which can detect the most immediate and real thing to human experience: our own thoughts. You cannot prove to me that any of your thoughts exist. Yet you know your thoughts exist.

Why do I need to "prove" that my thoughts exist? Strictly, I can't "prove" that the earth orbits the sun, I can only present evidence and make a good case. We believe in things we can't prove all the time, but we try not to believe in things for which there is no evidence. The fact that I am thinking counts as strong evidence for my own thoughts, and the fact that others behave similarly to me is good evidence for their thougts.

Therefore the fact that something cannot be proven, or leaves no physically detectable evidence, does not exclude the possibility that it exists. This fact is evident in our most imediate experience.

There is physically detectable evidence of thoughts: behavior. Unless you're defining thoughts as strictly epiphenomenal (have no effect at all on the world), then there is a very good body of evidence of thoughts.

Theli

Luvluv...
Didn't you say he was undetectable and he didn't even wan't to be discovered?
Wich way is it?

And about the trace, good! There we have a platform to work from. But mind you the "trickster-god". Since you assume a being exists wich such power that he can bend and manipulate reality. He his not bound by any laws. How do you know it was really the christian god who spoke to the prophets?
Some other omnipotent being might have orchestrated it all. Tricking the prophets, and through the bible also tricking you.
It's impossible to trace the source of the actions made by an supernatural being with that kind of power.

Wow!!! I must say I'm impressed.
First god created milions of galaxies, and then in one of those galaxies he created bilions of stars, and on one of those star's solarsystem he created a ball called earth. Where, of all 5 bilion people he decides to have a personal relationship with you.

Doesn't that make YOU a prophet aswell?

Wait a minute, I'm confused. He is undetectable, yet you detect him, by hearing him speak.

What?
Just because there is things we don't possess knowledge of, or the means yet to detect it doesn't translate itself to "the christian god exists".
My objection is that if you cannot detect or verify god's nature you have no idea wich god it might be.

There is a theory about that, about a zero energy universe. Matter aswell as antimatter created out of nowhere/nothing. It's one of the leading theories about Big Bang. Creatio Ex Nihilo, you know...

I have read about experiments with antimatter somewhere, I just can't remember where. I'll keep looking.

luvluv

"Gadzooks, unworthyone! Alfred Hitchcock appeared in every one of his movies, and Shakespeare could have written himself in as a character. Furthermore, actors know that they are acting in a play and that someone wrote the lines that they must memorize. There is no evidence even remotely like that for the existence of a god in our own real-life "play". You keep insisting that there is no evidence where evidence is everywhere to be found."

I think I very clearly said that in the analogy I am refering to, that you and I are to God as HAMLET and MACBETH are to Shakespeare. Not as the actors playing them are to shakespeare, but as the characters themselves, as creations. You are not stupid, and I know you understand exactly what I mean.

If God created the universe, he must have had his principle existence outside of the universe. Therefore, the fact that we cannot find him within this universe is no reason to believe he doesn't exist. What you are saying would be equivalent to Hamlet saying that because he cannot find Shakespeare anywhere in his world (the world Shakespeare created) that therefore there must be no Shakespeare and the notion that anyone "created" him must be absurd.

I think you understand exactly the point I am trying to make here.

"That is not the argument. The argument is that there is no reasonable evidence to suggest that God exists in just the same way that there is no reasonable evidence to suggest that Santa Claus exists. I can't disprove Santa Claus's existence, but that does not strengthen my faith in his existence. It is reasonable to assume that if God exists we ought to be able to detect him. If we can't, then we have no reasonable evidence for him. Or Santa Claus, for that matter."

I never stated this premise as evidence for the existence of God. This is now the third time I am stating this, and I hope it will not be necessary a 4th time. I am simply stating that the lack of evidence within this physical universe of a God is invalid grounds for disbelieving in a God. To have created this plane, he must have existed on another plane, and may still be there. He may be able to observe this plane and to enter into it when He wishes, but He by no means has to live within it anymore than I have to live within a comic strip I drew, or a short story I wrote.

"I think that we both understand each other's argument, but we disagree on who is missing the point. We don't need to "explain" consciousness in order to know that it is contingent on material reality. We observe that physical conditions alter states of consciousness. It is reasonable to conclude that consciousness is grounded in the physical condition of the brain, since we can only detect it in connection with functioning brains. You may choose to believe that consciousness can exist independently of a brain, but you have no evidence for it."

My point was that the actual thoughts in your head are undetectable by any known means in the universe, therefore there are things that exist that cannot be detected. Therefore, naturalism seems to be incapable of explaining the one phenemonenon most common to humanity, that of our thoughts. This is, again, not a proof of God, but a suggestion that crass materialism, in the words of Hugh Ross, may not be capable of explaining everything that exists. There may be things that exist that we have no capacity for detecting.

"There you go again. You claim to observe your thoughts, but you claim not to have evidence that they exist."

By evidence, I am reffering to the type of scientific, repeatable, verifiable, objective evidence on which we base our scientific process. Let's assume I am not talking about conciousness in the general sense, but on a specific thought (ex: What a lovely day) in my own head. Can this be objectively proven so that you would feel comfortable publishing in a scientific journal with 100% certainty that I had the thought "What a lovely day" in my head?

Naturalism is based on objective, repeatable, physical evidence. There is no means for gaining such evidence on human thoughts. Yes, I know my thoughts, and you claim that as evidence. But I also know that God talks to me, but in that case you would not accept that as evidence. And you would be right, in the scientific sense, because my evidence that God talks to me is subjective.

"No you can't. For crying out loud, how many times do I have to urge you to read Dawkins?"

I don't recall that you have ever told me to read Dawkins, but if I told you to read C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterdon would you run out and do it? I don't think anything Dawkins could claim would deprive me of the ability to disagree with him, unless he can prove with objective certitude that DNA did indeed evolve.

Kvalhion:

"Think about it. You believe that God created the world and people. Yet you also believe that humans are somehow not what God wanted them to be, and now they have to change the properties of who they are to appease God. Doesn't that sound a bit nonsensical? If a character Shakespeare had created turned out not to be what Shakespeare intended, would he start to admonish the character for being flawed and set in motion rules to follow? Or, since he created the story in the first place, wouldn't he just simply fix what was wrong?"

I think you are getting caught up in the analogy. Shakespeare created a play, God created a world of beings who were intended by him to have free will. The fact that we are free, and even the fact that we sometimes make mistakes with that freedom, was all known by God when He created us. God did not create us to go by a script, He created us to have choices. I only used the Shakespeare analogy to show what the implications of being a Creator entail. Shakespeare obviously doesn't have the power to create beings with free wills.

Pompous: I think I explained what I meant in my answer to copernicus. I think that should answer your objection. I know there are electric currents in the brain, but electric currents ARE NOT THOUGHTS. If the naturalistic interpretation is correct, we ought to be able to decipher an electric conversion chart that shows what currents at what voltage produce what thoughts. But it breaks down, because at some point the human brain exceeds the sum of it's parts.

This is my argument: THOUGHTS are not detectable from an objective standpoint. THOUGHTS exist. Therefore some things exist that are not detectable.

Theli:

"Didn't you say he was undetectable and he didn't even wan't to be discovered?
Wich way is it?"

First of all, you're mixing threads. Second of all, what I said on that other thread was that he wanted to be detected, but through the medium of faith. I can communicate with him because I have faith in His existence and His character. You can read the "If God exists, why is he hiding?" thread if you want my opinion on the subject.

"Just because there is things we don't possess knowledge of, or the means yet to detect it doesn't translate itself to "the christian god exists"."

Never said that.

"Wow!!! I must say I'm impressed.
First god created milions of galaxies, and then in one of those galaxies he created bilions of stars, and on one of those star's solarsystem he created a ball called earth. Where, of all 5 bilion people he decides to have a personal relationship with you."

Well, I'm pretty good-looking.