snatchbalance

LuvLuv,

I can't help but ask this, have you ever considered the possiblity that your revelations from G are simple, mild delusions?

I mean, if like you say, no one else can detect your thoughts, how do you know they're accurate? How can you be so certain that they're not just some mild aberation?

I mean, there is no logical argument, or physical evidence, that would indicate the need for, or presence of a god/creator. Why insist that there is such a thing?

Just curious.

Snatchbalance

daemon

Contact involves detection. Given that these two sentences contradict each other, I'll assume you espouse the latter, and believe in God's detectability. Good start.
This appears to be incoherent; if God has revealed itself in any way, then God is detectable. "Scientific means" doesn't enter into it, unless you can show that there is some form of possible non-scientific detection.
[I managed to lose track of my thoughts after being distracted for an hour, so I'll post a more substantive reply in my next post]

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]</p>

luvluv

Typhon:

I believe because of personal experience. I believe because when I called out to God for help in faith, He helped me.

I don't believe because I can't detect God. So the burden of proof is not on me. We both, apparently, consider the fact that God is not detectable to not be an issue as to belief or disbelief. I know this might pain you to realize, but we agree on this point.

By the way, we are here dealing with a hypothetical that goes thusly: IF God created the universe, THEN we should/should not expect to be able to detect him.

Thus, don't you see how it doesn't make any sense for you to keep reffering to how you think the universe was made. It takes the hypothetical out of the equation for the one momment in the argument when it is inconvenient to your position, and then eases back in when you feel you can deal with it. IF the universe was created, as is the hypothetical we are dealing with, THEN whatever created it was not here. Therefore, there is somewhere else that exists. Everyt hypothetical we are dealing with starts with IF THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED.

I agree with the hypothetical, I believe the universe was created, and thus I believe that the fact that we cannot detect God to be not at all inconsistent with a created universe.

We agree, Typhon. It's over.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Typhon

So then you hold belief based upon evidence of your god, which YOU have detected operating in the universe. This would suggest that you, despite your initial claims, base your belief on an observable and detectable (whether he is detectable on his whim or based on your exploration is irrelevant to this question) god. Why do you go on to discuss an "undetectable god?"
How do you figure this? Am I or am I not correct, in saying that YOU are the one professing belief in a god? Furthermore, you've stated above after my lengthy, pulling-of-teeth questioning, as believing in an observable god who has personally been detected/involved in your life. So, the burden of proof, if you wish to suggest this is any sort of valid claim, lies CLEARLY with you. Who else do you think it lies with? The Tooth Fairy? The Dairy Board? Me? Why? I have questioned YOUR belief that a god exists. I have said, "where's the evidence that points towards even the possibility that you might be right?"
No we don't. How many times do I have keep saying this: I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT YOU JUST MADE (again).

If god is NOT detectable, then it is an issue that affects belief or disbelief. If you believe in god, and you say he is not detectable, then why do you believe in him? If he has made himself know to you, then he is by definition, detectable. If he has not made himself known to you, then how do you know about him? If you have inferred his existence from the universe, then his presence is somehow observable. If it is not, and the world is more readily explainable by means of natural process (which is what I profess), AND, god is not detectable, then why would you believe?

Certainly the fact that A. I didn't believe in god to begin with, and B. There is no evidence/proof that he exists, impacts on my original statement (A) of belief in that it does not adversely affect it. This may not be a proof that A is correct, but I don't need to proof that something which may not exist, doesn't exist. Not unless someone makes a counter claim, such as you have.

Is it possible for a god to exist that I can't detect or observe, in the world or personally? Yes. Can I say anything about such a god? No. Is saying I don't believe such a god exists a statement of this effect? No, because, I only state it, in direct relation to your statement that he does. Seeing that there is no evidence of a god, no apparent need for one, and no proof that such a god exists, I would never say anything about such an undetectable hypothetical god, EXCEPT for the fact you claim such a entity exists.

The "burden of proof" thus lies with you. If it doesn't, then please show how it does not.
I do not agree. First, this "hypothetical" position is your introduction, not mine. Second, my referral to "how (I) think the universe was made" was in context but not a dependent part of our discussion about whether or not a creator had to exist outside its creation, in fact it was a casual comment setting up a particular example. It has NOTHING to do with changing my position when it becomes "inconvenient" and was made in the process of pointing out my example that the space that the naturalistic universe "expanded" into was not present until the moment of that expansion. This was included specifically while trying to show you how in your HYPOTHETICAL theory that a creator god who created the universe had to exist outside the universe it created was not a valid claim.
Whatever space your hypothetical god is said to inhabit, there is no logical reason that the creation of the world suddenly thrust it and its inhabitants, "outside" the created universe. If god is the point of a singularity, there is no reason why the universe isn't the expanded result of his creation in such a hypothetical situation.

You have still not shown a logical impossibility with the hypothetical creator of the universe needing to exist entirely outside of that universe, just as if I build a new bedroom in my existing house, suddenly that bed-room is no longer a part of the larger house. Whatever "space" that your hypothetical creator god existed in prior to creation (which doesn't have to be space of any sort, nor is there any scriptural reference one way or the other of much use), is not by necessity, anything separate from that in which your hypothetical universe is created.
I don't agree with the hypothetical, I don't believe the universe was created, and I DO believe the fact that we cannot detect a god to be inconsistent with a created universe. So how you manage this:
Is beyond me. Perhaps you've spent too much time in Bizarro World, where disagree = agree.

.T.

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

braces_for_impact

I have often seen how theists give god all the credit for the good in the world, and absolve him of any evil that takes place.

The key word here is omniscience. If god is omniscient, then he knows the future, it's that simple. He knows exactly what is going to transpire. To put it simply, this is not compatable with free will. God knows what choices we will make. God knows that the vast majority of people on this planet will not accept him, no matter how many chances given. He *knows* what their choice will be before they die. *But he creates them anyway!* Therefore he creates the majority of people for the express purpose of living out approximately 70 years on this planet, and then going straight to everlasting torture. All for the lucky few that get to join him in everlasting bliss? This is obviously not benevolent. Free will is a copout. God knew before we were even created what our choice was, and according to several standard religious doctrines, will cheerfully create you anyway, and toss you in hell. Talk about the sentence not fitting the crime! Yet this god is called "perfectly just".

All of this is even more insulting when one considers the scope. God created Satan and his followers *knowing* they would rebel. He created Eden and all therin *knowing* what Adam and Eve's choice would be. He flooded the world knowing the outcome, and any other of the countless examples one could give from the bible.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

This is the being worthy of our adoration and respect? This is the one we should worship? Time and again we see god trying and failing to "save" man. The tree in Eden, the flood, animal sacrifice, And Jesus the supposed final sacrifice. Hardly the work of an all knowing, all powerful being. A seven year old could come up with a better 'divine plan'. In fact, mine has, just ask him .

Any divine being that would play hide and seek with his own followers is just plain cruel. If faith is so important, then there should be NO evidence of his existence at all, as proof does not require faith. On the other hand, a god who uses belief without evidence as criteria for joining him in paradise for all eternity and punishes those who do not, is even more cruel.

Is not seeing enough to not believe? Certainly. To say otherwise, one must open up to and believe in any silly assertion one cannot disprove. There could be invisible pink unicorns orbiting Alpha Centauri, should I believe because I haven't seen it and cannot dissprove it? Obviously not. Is it possible that they are really there? Technically yes, but it would be absurd to believe as much.

luvluv

Typhon:

I have consistently said that by undetectable I meant "scientifically, objectively" undetectable, and I have consistently said that God IS detectable by faith. I meant by undetectable something that is impossible to verify empirically, something impossible to verify through objective evidence. My relationship to God is based on my detecting him by faith, which is not a grounds on which we can scientifically say God has been detected. I have said this REPEATEDLY on this thread.

My belief does not have anything to do with the fact that God is not SCIENTIFICALLY detectable in the universe.

Therefore, unless your disbelief is founded on the fact that God is not SCIENTIFICALLY detectable in the universe, WE SIMPLY DO NOT DISAGREE.

MadMordigan

And as a sidenote, it was possible for Satan and his angels to rebel, so rebellion is obviously possible in heaven.

What happens to those who rebel in heaven? Are they sent to hell? Made to not exist? Over a long enough time frame, surely every one of us will find some reason to 'rebel' against god in heaven. Isn't heaven going to be pretty deserted after a couple million millenia?

Tristan Scott

HRG says:

Not to quibble, but you said this as though it were widely accepted fact. Aren't the conclusions you are drawing here highly speculative?

HRG

When a theory (quantum electrodynamics) which relies on vacuum fluctuations predicts a specific result and agrees with experiments for 14 decimals, I think it is not speculative any more.

Regards,
HRG.

Tristan Scott

HRG writes: I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood. Based on the conversation you were replying to I assumed you were concluding that something was really made from nothing, and that this was how the universe was created. A quantum vacuum, as I'm sure you are aware, is hardly "nothing", and to date we haven't created any universes in the laboratory.