This topic contains 53 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
@DeannaOgle For instance, I do have to think about what god thinks of me, but as I found I’m a much harsher critic than he is in a lot of ways. (For instance, he won’t smite me for not reading my Bible every day.)
To love oneself without feeling guilty or judging it as arrogance can be difficult.
@DeannaOgle I don’t have to “sell” my faith like a pyramid scheme. I can just live my life and I don’t have to worry about “having the talk” about hell with every person I care about in my life (because my views on hell and how you should appropriate talk to friends about faith have changed dramatically). I can tell you, it’s an F’ing relief!
LOL
Yeah, that’s a high pressure gig. Christian Amway is alive an well.
@Richard, What I have attempted to explain to you was how scientific research is one of the reasons why I believe in God. I have also pointed out that this same research has lead a number of well respected scientists to come to the same conclusion. I have not tried to state that we can prove God exists, and your continued obsession with a theory to test God’s existence, especially implying that I would break new ground in science is, sorry to say, beginning to sound somewhat condescending. I have even presented at least two examples of theories within the scientific community for which there was no test in one, and in the other no conceivable way to even formulate a test. I am not looking to devise a test nor do I believe it is necessary. As I implied in the watchmaker analogy, I can deduce many things about the discovered watch, including the fact that it had a designer, without having to form some sort of means of devising a test that will determine WHO made it. That is all I am saying. The analysis of the watch can still be one of science. Your refusal to acknowledge this basic premise has brought me to the point of saying I think it best we stop our discussion. There is a danger of our dialogue becoming combative (or should I say more so) and I have too much respect for TLC to allow such to happen.
Take Care.
@Gary The mathematical realities of removing a creator from the equations are so extremely implausible that theories such as the multiverse or parallel universe theory are put forth as a possible explanation. Of course this “theory” is also untestable.
I actually had the time to properly read through this discussion. This resonates with me too, in fact your entire post above did really.
I will interject further. I see where @Richard is coming from in that science has very strict guidelines and that if you cannot test a hypothesis then you cannot even begin to attach it to science. But I see Gary’s frustration, because I don’t think you are quite understanding what he is saying (from my perception anyway). He’s not saying that the case for a creator can be substantiated as a scientific theory, but more that we can attempt to prove God’s existence by the scientific understandings that are already in place, hence why there are many scientists and brilliant minds throughout history who have attempted to do this, the father of modern physics, Issac Newton, was one of these people. To him, the discover of gravity only strengthed his belief in an intelligence behind such a great power, simply because there was no explanation why such a force was there in first, and even to this we still haven’t a clue. Or any of the universal laws for that matter! There is simply no scientific explanation as to why the universe is as it is, why its governed by the laws its governed by that essentially hold it all together, why it allows us to survive against all odds, why its even here in the first place! Whether you believe in miracles or not, the very fact that we are here now, talking via an internet forum, is probably the greatest and most tangible miracle of all time.
I think the biggest flaw with your argument Richard, is when you attempted to separate philosophy from science and then proceeded to stack belief in with philosophy. Its implying that logic only exists with the realms of testable science, and that philosophy has no place within such a concept. This is a mistake. I’m pretty sure there is a famous quote from Einstein whereby he stressed the importance of philosophy when attempting to establish a logical hypothesis. For one to make a logical analysis of one’s perceptions, there is no rule to state that it must be testable which I think is what Gary was trying to establish. Philosophy and logic are very much two sides of the same coin, every great philosophical quote throughout history was made purely from rational examination, which is why many of them continue to resonate in modern times, many philosophical arguments become great aids to scientific study, like Occam’s Razor for example.
And we can use great logical concepts such as Occam’s Razor is attempting to establish the existence of a creator without having to test everything first. Just because such arguments aren’t testable, it doesn’t make them illogical. The list I gave before? The great ‘why’ questions of the universe, why are things like they are, why are we alive today against such incredible odds? The simplest explanation for me at least, is that a God exists. And this a God without thousands of years of history backing it up, with highly verifiable historical records backing up Jesus and the things he accomplished. History is absolutely positive that a God exists, so from that, we can definitely, on logical grounds, use such a God to answer the great many questions that science simply cannot answer. Logic does not merely exist within the realms of testable science, we make logical decisions everyday without having to verify them first, and in my opinion, logic pushes me to the concept of a creator existing, from God’s strong foundation in history to the observable universe. You don’t need to have a scientific theory in place to attempt logically conclude that God exists.
I will just add a further example I just thought of. The Big Bang theory. How do we know that happened? We detected background radiation in the vacuum of space and Hubble noticed that galaxies we moving away from each other, these are scientific observations, and from these observations, scientists logically discerned the universe must have had an origin, and must have happened has the theory suggests. We don’t know exactly what happened because we obviously weren’t there, we can’t exactly test for its existence, we can only make observations that logically could point to such a thing happening. Its best explanation we have. Why is it then so hard for one to accept that a similar thing can be done when attempting to identify the existence of a God by again, making scientific observations and seeing logically, where such observations point to?
@Gary The theory is not a test for God
What you keep referring to as a theory is a hypothesis. It’s not me you are debating. You are misusing the term “theory.” There is an informal use of the word theory, but that is in reference to philosophy, which accepts presuppositions. With the scientific method the presupposition is built in.
@Gary your continued obsession with a theory to test God’s existence, especially implying that I would break new ground in science is, sorry to say, beginning to sound somewhat condescending.
It is not an obsession with the test. There is no test. I’m trying to point out the correct definition of scientific theory.
@Gary As I implied in the watchmaker analogy, I can deduce many things about the discovered watch, including the fact that it had a designer, without having to form some sort of means of devising a test that will determine WHO made it.
This is not a theory because there are a number of equally plausible hypotheses. This is a hypothesis. To be a theory it has to have a test that meets the requirements of the scientific method. If it doesn’t then it’s not science.
@Shift Why is it then so hard for one to accept that a similar thing can be done when attempting to identify the existence of a God by again, making scientific observations and seeing logically, where such observations point to?
I would be very happy to look at any scientific observations that measure the presence of god. Unfortunately there are none.
The watchmaker analogy is not a theory or a scientific observation. It is a hypothesis. The multi-universe is also a hypothesis and is not scientific at this point. We have no method of measuring either of these claims. It would be nice if we could devise a test to determine the source of the laws that govern our universe. I would be very interested in that scientific undertaking.
The reason I’m trying to describe these to both of you is to help you tighten up your claims. I’m not trying to be mean or trying to be right. The reason science works so well within the its limited view is because it stays true to its principles. These are not my principles. These are methods that most scientists, both believer and non believer, generally agree on.
Science does not prove there is no god. It does not prove there is one. Science, at this point in time, has nothing to say about god. Science can point to complexity. It can point to amazing phenomena. It can reveal systems of order. It cannot tell us why there is something instead of nothing. This is currently the discipline of philosophy and belief. Just because a famous scientist expresses a belief doesn’t mean that it’s scientific.
@Gary And here is a note from Wikipedia on Occam’s Razor. Note that it is primarily a philosophical principle and when applied as an inductive inference it only applies to computational models. And finally is not considered a scientific result. Please read these and don’t accuse me of condescension when I’m trying to be accurate to the body of knowledge the brightest minds of our human race have collected.
The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.[b]
Solomonoff’s inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam’s razor:[2][3][4][5][6][7] shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.
In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, Occam’s razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.[1][10][11]@Richard I would be very happy to look at any scientific observations that measure the presence of god. Unfortunately there are none.
Measure would be the wrong term to use. There are scientific observations that I, and many others, believe strongly point towards the existence of a God, an entity of which is strongly validated in history. We cannot necessarily measure the Big Bang without actually being there, we validated its highly likely occurrence based on the scientific observations we made, we continue to add to such a theory based on further observations of our current universe. If there exists A (galaxies moving away from each other, existence of background radiation, cause and effect), then there must be B (an origin to the universe and thus the big bang theory). Exactly the same method can be used to postulate the existence of an intelligent designer.
@Richard The watchmaker analogy is not a theory or a scientific observation. It is a hypothesis.
No one said it was a theory, its clearly an analogy as the name of it suggests
But its an analogy used to prove a point about the sometimes double standards of materialistic thinking within this debate, if we came across the components of a complex mechanism that all fit together, we would all automatically and logically assume that there was a creator of it. Yet we look at the universe, which is infinitely more complex that a watch, but many would choose to call it random, its like finding the bits of that watch that come together and stating that no one created the watch, it just ‘is’. If a comet crashed onto to Earth and inside we found a vastly complex computer code that could be used to control infinitely complicated machines, we would automatically assume that some kind of extra-terrestrial intelligence was behind it. Yet, when we look our own DNA, which is precisely this, many would choose to believe again, that such a beautifully formed code occurred via random chance over a very long period of time. And that’s completely missing out a magnitude of problems with such a conclusion…@Richard The multi-universe is also a hypothesis and is not scientific at this point.
Attempting to establish a validated scientific theory for both the existence of God and a multi-verse are both impossible because both things by definition exist outside of our universe. Yet you would imply that a multi-verse could become scientific in time, yet God never can? ‘Science of the gaps’ much?
@Richard We have no method of measuring either of these claims. It would be nice if we could devise a test to determine the source of the laws that govern our universe. I would be very interested in that scientific undertaking.
Good luck with that, because no scientist has ever come close to achieving such an undertaking, basically because its nothing short of impossible. The laws of the universe are just there for some reason as the non-believer has to concede. That’s not a good enough explanation for a lot of people, including people like Newton. We can either throw our hands up and shrug, or we can use the some logical facilities as we would use in the watchmaker analogy and assume that such incredible designs that hold the universe together had a cause to be there, and thus had a creator.
@Richard The reason I’m trying to describe these to both of you is to help you tighten up your claims. I’m not trying to be mean or trying to be right. The reason science works so well within the its limited view is because it stays true to its principles. These are not my principles. These are methods that most scientists, both believer and non believer, generally agree on.
I’m not contesting the definitions you have presented, neither Gary or myself has stated that a scientific theory for God exists nor that such one can exist. I think the frustration Gary demonstrated was due to the fact that you were failing to understanding what he was trying to say. That we can use science and its observations to attempt to logically establish the existence of a creator. There exists a good amount of scientists who abandoned atheism for the belief in God based purely on the scientific observations they made, it is a valid logical practice.
@Richard Science does not prove there is no god. It does not prove there is one. Science, at this point in time, has nothing to say about god. Science can point to complexity. It can point to amazing phenomena. It can reveal systems of order. It cannot tell us why there is something instead of nothing. This is currently the discipline of philosophy and belief.
I agree, it does fall more into the realm of philosophy, but that doesn’t make it illogical. I stated above that science and philosophy work together as Einstein stated, and that logic and philosophy are two sides of the same coin. We can use science to make all the valid observations of the universe but indeed we cannot use it to definitively prove God’s existence, but quite rightly, we can see it pointing towards aspects of order and complexity. We can observe the anthrophic principle and scientifically establish that the universe only exists because a crazy number of universal factors had to be set just right, that conditions had to be perfect during the birth of the universe, and that such a premise being random chance is mathematically impossible. Why else do you think the multiverse theory was devised without a shred of evidence backing it up? Because that’s too heavy a weight to carry on your shoulders. So whether you believe in God or not, everyone simply must concede that our very existence is one hell of a miracle, because it literally defies the impossible. To me at least, that needs an explanation. So based on such scientific knowledge, and based on the strong foundation of God within history, I can logically philosophise if want, that a creator was behind such a thing. Because then what was initially impossible by materialistic standards, becomes very possible.
@Richard Just because a famous scientist expresses a belief doesn’t mean that it’s scientific.
You’re right, but it does mean there have been a great many people, who understand science a lot more than we do, and who are committed to science and logic, and who are vastly more intelligent that both of us (especially when you bring Newton into the mix), who made a logical decision, based on their great understandings of science, to believe that a creator was behind it. For many of these scientists, there was simply no other possible explanation for what they came to understand. So no, it doesn’t make it scientific, but it definitely makes it a valid logical conclusion based on science when such pioneers of science, logic and reason came to such an end.
And yes, the razor isn’t such an unchangeable principle of logic, but if the alternatives are basically impossible, i.e. our sustained existence, then it becomes the philosophical method we can use.
@Shift I agree, it does fall more into the realm of philosophy, but that doesn’t make it illogical.
You arguing points I’m not making. I have been saying all along that it is not a scientific claim. I didn’t say it wasn’t a logical one.
Philosophy and belief allow the exploration of presuppositions. Science presupposes an observable and measurable phenomenon. It is a tool to explore the natural world that is governed by laws. This presupposition is built in.
Here is the description of the Big Bang theory from Wikipedia
The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and theHubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae.[12]
The reason this is considered a scientific theory is because you can take its mathematical model and predict stuff. And when we find a way to test for what it predicts and it comes true and a bunch of different scientists do the same experiment and get the same results we have a scientific theory.
Where is this mathematical model for a creator god?
All you have is an appeal to complexity and order. From a philosophical standpoint you can make logic projections. You can’t do this from a scientific standpoint because you need the predictive model that allows you to design a test. We can’t make any observations because we have no way to measure god. We don’t even know what god is, so it makes even less sense to make claims about this unknown whatever as being scientific.
There is the same problem with multi-universes. We have to develop a way to look at other universes as observable phenomena. Until then this is not a scientific observation because we aren’t observing anything. Maybe one day when we have sufficient energy we could design a simulation of the big bang and observe how dense matter behaves with different physical laws. We would take our mathematical models based on the observation of elementary particles and predict what will happen. If it happens we then have a scientific observation and theory to work with.
I don’t make any claims about god or gods because I don’t what what god is. As soon as I allow an imaginary conscious god to be in my world it then implies that this god has wishes and characteristics and plans and is responsible or not responsible. It’s a logical mess.
That’s why I started this thread in the first place.
As soon as anyone makes a claim about something my mind automatically sets up a “what if” list. I have a set of iterations that almost instantly discovers the circular nature of any claim. It keeps me from being tricked.
I understand how a god myth could provide a sense of comfort and meaning. I use myth in this way to help me emotionally navigate difficult times. I also use reason because reason can often help me deduce a way through actual difficulties.
Most of my emotional difficulties are fabrications of my own mind. They don’t exist in the real world. I realized that my struggle with a god concept only existed in my own mind and I experience a great lightness of being without one.
@ Richard, the multiverse “theory” is almost universally referred to as such. I recognize that it is disputed within the scientific community that it should be referred to as a theory due to not meeting the criteria for a purely scientific theory, but none the less it is almost always referred to as such. I also clearly see the distinction between your reference to a hypothesis and a theory. I would be happy to say that scientific evidence lends itself to the hypothesis of a creator. It is true that for a theory to be identified as a “scientific” theory it must be able to, among other things, make verifiable or falsifiable predictions. However, even within the scientific community we see the term theory being utilized for hypothesis like the existence of multiple universes. I think, when I identified way back in our discussion that I acknowledged that we have no means to “test” the existence of God, it was pretty clear that I did not use theory in the strictest scientific sense. (In the same way several hypothesis within science are, perhaps incorrectly, generally referred to as theories though are clearly untestable) When I stated that you were obsessed with being able to formulate a “test” for God, it was not to insult you but rather to point out that the point you kept trying to make was not being disputed between us. It was instead clearly precluding you from acknowledging my point which was that scientific discovery leads many TO a belief in God rather than away from it. I am actually strengthened in my belief in a creator when I see the great lengths some go to (multiverse “theory” for example) to attempt to explain the development of the universe without something fine tuning it. The mathematical probabilities become virtually impossible without hypothesizing other unknown realities.
This why why I stated that my belief in God is not simply a matter of faith. It is true that logic alone does not constitute my belief in God because I also believe in a spiritual realm where we connect with God on a level beyond the realm of science. But this takes nothing away from my very logical and “scientific” belief in a creator.
I came back to this discussion after I had intended not to because for one, I really like you Richard and respect your rational approach to your beliefs. But also because I hope to help you understand perhaps why sometimes your approach may put people off and close ears to what you have to say. When this happens it is unfortunate because I believe that the difference between genuine belief and simple theological dogma is honestly exploring all possibilities with as little bias as is humanly possible. In fact it is for this reason that I would even be comfortable identifying myself as a bit of an agnostic. I am not threatened by the fact that we cannot know for sure. I believe because I view a creator as the more logical conclusion of the facts we do know, as well as the spiritual connection that I perceive on a level I could never attempt to explain.
Anonymous@Shift Richard, the multiverse “theory” is almost universally referred to as such. I recognize that it is disputed within the scientific community that it should be referred to as a theory due to not meeting the criteria for a purely scientific theory, but none the less it is almost always referred to as such.
I tend to go straight to the source rather than look at what people are saying something is. That way I can study it for myself and I am using the methods of science, which is a rigorous method for finding truth about the natural observable universe. This is from Wikipedia.
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes
The key word here is hypothetical. This is mistakenly referred to as a theory because it is part of a set of hypotheses related to string theory.
@Shift I would be happy to say that scientific evidence lends itself to the hypothesis of a creator.
When you use the word scientific evidence you are implying the methods of science. It would be more accurate to say, “My observation of order and complexity causes me to favor a hypothesis of a creator.” The word evidence is problematic because strong evidence provides direct proof of an assertion and since your assertion is a hypothesis, it becomes circular.
@Shift I think, when I identified way back in our discussion that I acknowledged that we have no means to “test” the existence of God, it was pretty clear that I did not use theory in the strictest scientific sense.
And that is fine in philosophy. Philosophy has to start with presuppositions because its truth is found by non contradiction. When you say scientific theory, that is the strict sense.
@Shift This why why I stated that my belief in God is not simply a matter of faith. It is true that logic alone does not constitute my belief in God because I also believe in a spiritual realm where we connect with God on a level beyond the realm of science. But this takes nothing away from my very logical and “scientific” belief in a creator.
Your belief can be logical within a philosophical discussion, but it is not scientific. I know you put “scientific” into quotes, but for those within science this is rather grating because science relies heavily on strict interpretation of its methods. There is a whole lot of junk science out there that treats science as a philosophy and if you want to be heard by people who value these methods you might want to be more precise. You have the whole realm of philosophical study to dialog about god and the nature of said god.
@Shift It was instead clearly precluding you from acknowledging my point which was that scientific discovery leads many TO a belief in God rather than away from it.
And my point is that leading to god is a philosophical and inspirational method, not a scientific one. I’m not minimizing it because its not scientific. To function in life we have to have other methods besides a scientific one. I’m awed by the study of the universe. It’s an intangible sense of wonder. I know many atheists feel the same way. It’s part of what makes our lives meaningful. I acknowledge that this wonder can lead people to perceive a god behind it. That makes sense to me, but I can quite clearly see that it’s not a scientific claim.
@Shift I am actually strengthened in my belief in a creator when I see the great lengths some go to (multiverse “theory” for example) to attempt to explain the development of the universe without something fine tuning it. The mathematical probabilities become virtually impossible without hypothesizing other unknown realities.
There are no mathematical probabilities at all. You have to have something to measure to set up mathematical probabilities. You can take a hypothesis and do some what ifs, but that’s not a valid scientific conclusion.
You are also appointing motives for scientists. When you stated, “when I see the great lengths some go to attempt to explain the development of the universe without something fine tuning it.” you are projecting some kind of malice toward a god explanation. There are Christians who think that god used the multi universe to create this universe.
If a scientist would apply natural selection, which we can observe, to the fine tuning of the universe it would make sense that they would hypothesize a multi universe with natural selection waiting for a stable one. This is a natural train of thought, not some malice toward god explanations. When atheists propose this, they are simply showing that there is more than one hypothesis for why our universe is ordered.
@Shift I came back to this discussion after I had intended not to because for one, I really like you Richard and respect your rational approach to your beliefs. But also because I hope to help you understand perhaps why sometimes your approach may put people off and close ears to what you have to say.
I understand that, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you could hang in there so we could clarify our positions without being offended. I don’t have these conversations with just anyone.
Let me explain why these types of conversations have been useful for me. I spent a number of years on the “god defense” side of things and I’m not so far removed from those times that I don’t have a sense of what it is like. It is not fun to have one’s beliefs deconstructed. I’m grateful for the time people put in to do that, but like going to the dentist, it’s not pleasant, but when your done your tooth doesn’t hurt.
Part of my journey has to been the exploration of every idea and the rigorous pursuit of truth. In fact this was based on the promise in Matt 7:7, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” I also applied John 8:32 “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Another one which I think relates to directness is in Matt 5:37, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”
From this basis I exhausted all the lines of thought I felt would defend god and I came to the end of them. And at the end I had to honestly say that I didn’t know. I don’t know if everyone needs to do this.
What I find interesting is a quote from the Tao.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal TaoThe name that can be named is not the eternal name
When I got to the end of my ability to know and my ego was silent I found peace in not knowing. And if these conversations help to come to the end sooner, then maybe they are useful for some.
@Richard. When you use the word scientific evidence you are implying the methods of science. It would be more accurate to say, “My observation of order and complexity causes me to favor a hypothesis of a creator.” The word evidence is problematic because strong evidence provides direct proof of an assertion and since your assertion is a hypothesis, it becomes circular.
It sounds as if you did not look at the link I provided earlier. My discussion of the mathematical improbabilities of our universe without a creator is most definitely based upon scientific analysis. While the fine tuning argument is indeed a hypothesis, it is very much based on real and actual science. Sorry…but I will not agree with the view that the argument for fine tuning takes place outside of the realm of science.
You are also appointing motives for scientists. When you stated, “when I see the great lengths some go to attempt to explain the development of the universe without something fine tuning it.” you are projecting some kind of malice toward a god explanation.
Actually no not at all. I apply no motive of malice in the least. There are many believers who do this very thing, but it is not what I do…not any more. My point is that explaining the realities of the universe outside of a creator has lead to some rather extreme “hypothesis” due to the nearly impossible mathematical solution within the construct of the observable universe. The multiverse concept is, to me, far less believable than the concept of design.
@Richard, When I got to the end of my ability to know and my ego was silent I found peace in not knowing.
I too share the same peace in not knowing. I belief not because I have proof. In the end I, just like you, do not know. I believe for all the reasons I have already stated, but acknowledge freely and openly I could be wrong. As I said, I too am at peace with this knowledge. In fact it has been quite liberating to admit this. But I do not conclude that not knowing means my only choice moving forward is to embrace a position that, to me, is the less likely explanation.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.