jfryejr

Interesting point, but SETI researchers would know that the signal is engineered by distinguishing it from the the background radio noise that is naturally present. They can detect that the signal is "created" because it differs from that which would naturally occur.

The universe, in and of itself, produces no non-natural signal to indicated that it was created by something intelligent (Of course, if the universe "produces" it, I guess it would be natural by definition). The universe can be explained by natural law, which defines itself (although I think this might be part of the argument-what actually defines the law).

The concept of time is a sticking point with the causation theory (at least from my perspective). Before the universe there was no time, time is a result of the curvature of space by mass. To argue that god is timeless, which must be true if he pre-existed (I don't know if something with no time could be said to *pre*-exist)the universe, also argues that god had all thoughts at once or couldn't have thought at all.

You could argue that we simply can't understand how a timeless deity could think because we are temporal beings, with our thought processes rooted in temporal logic, but that's the same, from my perspective, as saying we ultimately can't understand how god can exist (or how he thinks, or what his motives are, etc.).

If god had all thoughts at once, and god has no time, then that's the same as saying at the moment of god's inception, the universe was created. Which says god and the universe would have come into existence concurrently, since time and the universe are intimately linked.

The whole issue of time and a requisite linearity in the functions that define our macro universe belies a belief in a timeless (eternal?) god. It seems the only solution to that problem is to just throw a whole bunch of power in god's lap.

Don't understand how god thinks? It's too powerful to comprehend.
Don't understand how god could be timeless? It's too powerful to comprehend.

I didn't suggest god was "functionally" equivalent to nothingness, merely wrote that something non-physical and non-temporal is at least how I define nothingness. Well, I didn't write it exactly like that in my previous post, I revise my statement now. Don't know what the logical positivist movement is/was, though...have to read more....

Debate is the best way to learn. I'm fairly ignorant about much of the philosophy involving the existence of god (which often makes my points easy to disembowel). Reading these posts and occasionally responding to them has helped guide me to sources and philosophies.

jfryejr

oops...I think I actually did!

Sue Sponte

In other words, a premise of your reasoning is that faith is the equivalent of evidence. No?

Despite repeated effort, I cannot come to understand this. Why couldn't new truths be derived from new information or reasoning methodologies? This simply makes no sense to me.

This aptly illustrates the tenuous nature of your position. That isn't to suggest it isn't genuinely believed, but rather, that as the logic of my mind works, you are simply creating as a "truth" an unverifiable, untestable phenomenom. Again, as I see it, your position simply reduces to faith.

You believe it, therefore you construct arguments and rationales to support that belief. The premises are presumed, not deduced. That is the fallacy.

haverbob

Just little side point. I completely understand your point of view. If you did not require evidence, then someone should put you in a loony bin. Of course. I suppose that evidence is a nice thing to have, and I won't argue that point.

Let's suppose we were both back in the 17th century. Now someone finds this buried book that talks about microwave signals. It suggests that they exist and gives examples. Are those examples going to make any sense to a 17th century person? Of course not. They will seem like utter hogwash. And there would be absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support their existence. And you will rightfully DEMAND evidence before you accept the concept or reality of microwave signals. While I can agree with this demand, and say you are right for demanding so, the truth still is that those microwave signals always existed and the lunatic book ended up being right. Just long after your death, that's all.

But that example is still not really good because the truth of the matter is that you will NEVER receive evidence for God and therefore you will always be atheist for the rest of your life because of your stipulation. Once something (God) is a "timeless" being or entity, that in of itself will never be explained because that is a concept that is outside of our ability to reason much like the standard concept of "infinite regression". So why would you even bother to have someone prove or explain attributes of God to you, when the root itself is unexplainable? Why would you demand proof? That's pointless. But, if you are like the common atheist, you would say "it's not that I don't believe or disbelieve in God, it's that I have no evidence to do so, that's all", thereby asking for or demanding evidence.

So evidence is the measuring stick for something that is beyond human reasoning. That'll never work, and you would probably agree and say "that's my point". Evidence is actually a by-product of human reasoning. So truth ends or stops at the limits of our ability to apply reason. So evidence is being used here as the measuring stick for truth. I prefer to say that evidence is the measuring stick for fact, not truth. While I think that facts can never transcend our ability to reason, it is possible for truth to transcend our abilities to reason. To say that something can't be there because it can't conform to our system of reasoning, is a little bit presumptious in my opinion. So I stay a little more open minded about the issue and never do I bother to demand proof.

DMB

The difference is that the microwave book might well contain methodology that would lead to someone creating and doing something with microwaves. And microwaves would simply be a more advanced science/technology than was extant in the 17th century. Mind you, I wouldn't blame anyone for dismissing it if it was an isolated piece of information.

But when it comes down to it, the "evidence" for gods is a few pre-scientific books that contain a lot of unconvincing detail that gets us nowhere.

All the stuff about god being outside time or being the first cause and so on is later apologetics, in an attempt to rescue a shaky concept already perceived as problematical.

Sue Sponte

Thanks for the reply, Haverbob. I think a response to one passage can aptly summarize my view:

This illustrates the distinction between accepting a possibility and believing something to actually be true. Anything is possible. But that it is posssible is no reason to believe it is so.

I do not demand proof of the existence of a god, and agree with you it is a fallacy to do so. But Christians do not accept this fallacy, hence the debate. I see it as a given that humans are incapable of providing the "evidence" of a god, in any form: written, testimonial, intuitive, etc. I consider it wholly homocentric for humans to believe that they are capable of understanding a god, conveying its intents, or describing its requirements for attainment of anything.

All of the arguments advanced in this thread reduce particular, defined concepts in a vacuum, from which broader points are inappropriately derived. It all boils down to presumptions which no human can know are true or untrue, and thus the discussion loses meaning for me.

In this light, I reject any human-created text or theory which seeks to define, as a construct, some understanding of a supreme being. The entire process is a non sequitor by definition.

haverbob

So it seems like you are saying in this statement that you agree it, is a fallacy to do so (demand proof for the existence of God), and yet you are suggesting that Christians DO demand proof for the existence of God. Is that the way I was supposed to read that?? I must have misinterpreted.
Well, I'm not real versed at bible scripture, but I seem to remember this concept to where you are never supposed to paint an image of God, because it could only be a lie, because it could never represent the reality of God. I also remember the story of that Thomas Aquinas fellow who was a great "Catholic Mystic" and used to preach about God and then one day he happened to be visited by God, (or maybe he felt God or experienced God, either way), and then he never spoke about God again because he knew that anything he would say would be a lie, because words could never properly describe what he experienced. Anyway, enough of the tangent. Point is, is that religion does not always claim to have an accurate description of God (for you to subsequently tear down based on our "evidence system")Anyway, to correct the misconception, common people in religion describe God. The Bible describes God as best as it is ever going to be put in to words through a series of figurative statements, but the bible will never describe something properly that it also acknowledges that it can't describe. It just tries it's best. The rest of it has to be fealt or experienced. No way around that
Yes, in a vacuum, or at least common sense or reason would tell us a vacuum. Just like there was no such thing as microwave signals. They might have just as well been a vacuum until they were disovered.
Yes, I would have to agree with you. And I live in the 17th century and someone just suggested that I believe in this stupid thing called microwave signals. Can you imagine that??? Someone suggesting something that is invisible and therefore could never be proven (at least that's what a scientist would have thought then, no proof, kick it out). That thinking would hold true in the 17th, maybe not today's point of view. These people would have gone to the grave back then "being right". I think that in the 17th century, this ridiculous exercise of suggesting that there are microwave signals would have been MOST non sequitor. Put yourself in their position. Wouldn't you agree??

Sue Sponte

The fallacy is in arguing about "evidence" from humans as representing evidence of the existence of a god, such as claiming the Bible is sacred text. Re-reading my phrasing, I can see how you misinterpretted this.

There is no basis to reach this conclusion. Or to conclude that the bible is more accurate regarding the described god than the Koran. One can as easily declare The Onion to be Divine Scripture and reach the same conclusion.

There were likely tens of thousands of theories in the 17th century, most of which were false. All were possibilities given the level of knowledge at the time. As I noted earlier, that something is POSSIBLE is not evidence that it's true. Your example is merely a version of arguing that possibility is evidence of existence, a false premise.

That a 17th century scholar would be unable to comprehend microwaves, even when presented with "proof" by current standards, has nothing to do with whether a god exists or not. It is a good example of the type of argument I see to support the existence of a god, where the argument in fact offers nothing as to whether a god exists or existed. How does the lack of a scientific discovery by a given date tend to prove that something undiscovered today ultimately will be?

A god does not exist
A god existed but no longer exists
A god exists today
Many gods exist

All are possible (depending on what a "god" is) and there is no rational basis for selecting one over the other.

haverbob

Point taken. I Should have said that the Bible does the best job it can or possibly as good a job as anyone can do given the abstract nature of what it talks about. Whether the Bible or the Koran is the best is kind of irrelevent towards a God-no God discussion
Yes, and you also noted that it is silly to demand evidence for the existence of the truth of a God. But doesn't that last statement sort of suggest that you DO demand evidence? That's the way it sounds to me. As for truth, I made a distinction between truth and fact in an earlier post. What's your opinion on my distinction?
Well, at least according to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic version of God, God is a timeless entity with no beginning and no end. Since I subscribe more to that version as opposed to Greek or Hindu Gods, #2 is thrown out immediately as not matching the version that I believe in (and hence would bother to argue). In fact, I would have to throw out #4 as well. Not just because Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs claim there is only one God, it's more because of the claim of God being the origin for everything. Therefore there can't be "Gods" because something had to have created the "Gods". They didn't create each other. If hindu and greek gods have what they might call "sub gods" with one central god in charge, then perhaps the term "gods" is inaccurate. Perhaps angels would be more accurate. If there is a God, meaning the origin of everything, then surely there cannot be "gods" because that does not complete or answer the infinite regression question. So to me, #3 is the only possible answer next to #1. In fact, in retrospect, I can say that I threw out #2 because of the infinite regression question as well.

ComestibleVenom

Are you one of those people who are agnostic about elves too, or are you merely aquiescing to the commoness of God-delusions?