• jorndoe
    3.6k
    When crafting definitions so, then of course there's no logical/scientific dis/proof.

    It's not that hard to craft a definitional proposition so that both the proposition and its negation are compatible with all evidence. Like a difference that makes no difference (except Bateson used that phrase differently).

    With the garage dragon, Sagan alluded to a simple procedure by which claims can be counter/evidence-immunized, converging on such propositions. With the invisible gardener, John Wisdom expressed something similar. Say, when the Olympians were nowhere to be found once people started looking (and could), the deities became "relocated" to some "otherworldly" realm.
    The immunization procedure.
    Thus, Tillich, Eagleton, and Whalon learned from the best, and now declare "God does not exist", yet in the same breath also declare "I believe God is". :D If we take existence to include reality, fictions/imaginations (fictions exist too, they're just not real), thinking (might occur when reading the forums), whatever, then their strange verbiage leads to "God" as "something" of which nothing much can be said. Neither here nor there, a ghost of bewitching language.

    I guess you could show something, and then identify that as "God", which hence exists, or come up with a definition and determine that it refers to something real, just what you were looking for, "God". Just have to keep in mind that definitions are ours — there are no running elephants in dictionaries/encyclopedias, though we might find evidence of a stampede out there.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    The notion of 'God' has already flunked out due to the impossibility of a composite being First and Fundamental. Not even the tiny proton could be Fundamental because its parts would have to be more so.

    The God notion flunks for other reasons too. The universe is full of unintelligent design; a big rock caused the Permian extinction that made the opening for mammals to evolve. There were other extinctions too, and perhaps another is coming.

    What, then is Fundamental instead of 'God'?

    The 'Existence Principle' that says that something has to be, with no option not to be, is applicable to what is the least, not to the greatest, as to what ever is as partless and continuous as the one Permanent thing made only of itself.

    Why does it spawn temporaries such as the universe, us, and 'particles' rather than not, it just sitting there not doing anything?

    Philosophically and scientifically, we note that it doesn't sit still; therefore it can't remain still, and so it is energetic.

    How does it form the temporaries, given that it can only be itself and not change into anything different than itself?

    It thus can only rearrange itself, as it must, being energetic, into the temporaries that come and go, some of them lasting for quite a while, as events, not things.

    Many proposed Fundamentals have fallen by the wayside, such as Newton's Absolute Time and Space and the idea of Absolute elementary 'particles' as themselves producing fields. What is left are quantum fields that produce the elementaries at stable rungs of energy quanta at those specific levels of excitations.

    We note this happening along with the upward progression of the universe from the simple unto the more complex doing what was supposed as God's job, naturally only, this necessarily taking almost 14 billion years up to now, with no magic therein, even at causality's great speed that is the speed of light, and still the continuing existence of humans is precarious.

    RIP Notion of 'God'; It was never going to wash that the lesser had to be created by the greater, and so forth, ad infinitum…
  • GraveItty
    311
    The notion of 'God' has already flunked out due to the impossibility of a composite being First and Fundamental. Not even the tiny proton could be Fundamental because its parts would have to be more so.PoeticUniverse

    Hey! There you are again! What happened to the poems you posted in a thread about philosophical poems? Why did you delete it? :sad:

    Why has that notion of God flunked out. Can't there be an eternal first and Fundamental divine world? Why not? All properties of our observable (and non-observable) universe can be projected on them. You might ask, then what's the sense in creating a similar universe?
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    Hey! There you are again! What happened to the poems you posted in a thread about philosophical poems? Why did you delete it? :sad:GraveItty

    It's not deleted; they moved the thread to the lounge area.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    The lounge area?GraveItty

    It's under categories to the left of this screen. Lounge stuff doesn't show up here.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    You might ask, then what's the sense in creating a similar universe?GraveItty

    Life going on in our universe is the Soap Opera Channel for the Divine Guys.
  • Banno
    24.8k
    Yes but your incoherent notion is only one description of such an entity.Benj96

    AN incoherent notion is perhaps not a description of anything. Of course one can change one's idea of god to fit whatever one likes; but in the end that's one of the problems with the very notion of god - no one is quite sure what it is, so it can be anything.

    My preference is Sol invictus.
  • Banno
    24.8k
    I would argue that both science and logic can and do ‘prove’ gods existence.Robbie84

    Then you should have no trouble first showing us what god is and then providing said proof.
  • Banno
    24.8k
    So even if it is just people aspiring to the divine, I think you have to give the idea of God some credence.Pantagruel

    That looks reasonable at first blush. But folk twist the aspiration into religion.
  • Wayfarer
    22.3k
    With the garage dragon, Sagan alluded to a simple procedure by which claims can be counter/evidence-immunized, converging on such propositions. With the invisible gardener, John Wisdom expressed something similar. Say, when the Olympians were nowhere to be found once people started looking (and could), the deities became "relocated" to some "otherworldly" realm.

    The immunization procedure.

    Thus, Tillich, Eagleton, and Whalon learned from the best, and now declare "God does not exist", yet in the same breath also declare "I believe God is". If we take existence to include reality, fictions/imaginations (fictions exist too, they're just not real), thinking (might occur when reading the forums), whatever, then their strange verbiage leads to "God" as "something" of which nothing much can be said. Neither here nor there, a ghost of bewitching language.
    jorndoe

    Apophatisism and negative theology are not 'an immunisation procedure'. It's not as if it is a rhetorical dodge designed to win arguments against unbelievers or defend against atheists. For many believers, these ideas are atheist, and many times in history their exponents have been tried as heretics. Nobody burns heretics nowadys, but Tillich was accused of atheism on more than one occasion.

    What the 'negative insight' depends on is a realisation of there being degrees of reality. But that, for us, is an impossible thing to concieve of, because, for us, only things are real, and the only things that exist are phenomenal things, 'out there somewhere', those things detectable by sense, including the augmentation provided by scientific instruments.

    This is why I return again and again to the reality of intelligible objects. By this I mean something like, but not only, platonic ideas and forms. But the scope of the intelligible world comprehends many other elements, like natural numbers, geometric forms, principles and laws, and so on. At least some of all these possible forms are real - but in what sense? Where do they exist? They are not 'out there somewhere' but are discernable only by reason. Their reality is implicit, implied, they do not exist in the sense that teapots and rocks exist, but they are nevertheless real. In fact they represent the structural level of reality, the formal tissue of reality itself. They comprise the 'formal realm' which science depends on but does not see sees only indirectly.

    So the ontological status of laws, principles, numbers, and the like, are a clue to the reality of the non-physical. Nobody can dispute the laws of physics, when it comes to their deployment, but there are plenty of disputes, as to for example whether it is really accurate to call them 'laws'. Whereas I understand the contemplation of first principles to be the original intent of metaphysics proper:

    if happiness consists in activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it should be activity in accordance with the highest virtue; and this will be the virtue of the best part of us. Whether then this be the Intellect [nous], or whatever else it be that is thought to rule and lead us by nature, and to have cognizance of what is noble and divine, either as being itself also actually divine, or as being relatively the divinest part of us, it is the activity of this part of us in accordance with the virtue proper to it that will constitute perfect happiness; and it has been stated already that this activity is the activity of contemplation. — Aristotle, The Nichomachean Ethics

    So the error of modernity is to assign reality to only what exists on the horizontal plane discoverable by sense experience, through extroversion and objectification. This leads to the erroneous conception that 'proof' of the reality of God can be obtained through empirical disclosure. But seeing through that itself requires a kind of conversion, a metanoia, change of outlook or understanding. That is the direction in which the 'negative theology' of Tillich et al needs to be sought, but it is a very difficult thing to fathom, as it goes against the current of modern thinking.

    Some refs

    Russell's Leaky Teapot, Re-visited, Bill Vallicella
    Hegel's God, Robert M. Wallace
    Augustine on Intelligible Objects
    God as Ground of Being
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    RIP Notion of 'God'; It was never going to wash that the lesser had to be created by the greater, and so forth, ad infinitum…PoeticUniverse

    The Golden Template employed above had to be thrown out through the stain-glass window after its one and only attempted usage for showing 'God'.

    austin_s_art_interior_for_kindle-83.jpg

    The Permanent’s the one and only thing,
    As the ‘vacuum’, whose zero-point energy
    Isn’t zero, its point values tugging
    On each other and thus being quantum fields.

    We decompose it into harmonic
    Oscillators though a Fourier-transform,
    Each as a quantum harmonic oscillator
    Whose energy comes in quantized units.

    The lowest energy state is not zero.
    When we sum for all possible values
    We get an infinite result.

    When a theory is renormalizable,
    There’s a mathematically sensible process
    To discard the unwanted infinities
    But still account for finite differences,

    Which are responsible for observables;
    We may sum energies to some finite cutoff value,
    And use it to compute observable values;
    In the limit of the cutoff going back to infinity,
    The physical prediction doesn’t change.
  • Robbie84
    2
    Interesting thoughts. Does anyone here believe the bible does indeed have divine authority?
  • SpaceDweller
    520
    Does anyone here believe the bible does indeed have divine authority?Robbie84

    That depends on whether one believes in God or not.

    Consider 2 persons, one believes in God, the other does not.
    One which believes in God is struggling with "what if there is no God?"
    Other one which doesn't believe in God is struggling with "what if there is God?"

    Doubt is inevitable regardless of whether one believes in God or not, therefore it takes prudence to make your decision, so it's all about risk as follows:
    1. If I don't believe in God then what risk do I run to start believing in God if there is no God?
    2. If I do believe in God then what risk do I run to stop believing in God if there is God?
  • DecheleSchilder
    15
    .

    1. If I don't believe in God then what risk do I run to start believing in God if there is no God?
    2. If I do believe in God then what risk do I run to stop believing in God if there is God?
    6m
    SpaceDweller

    What risks you refer to? I can't see what kind of risk one runs if he make a change in belief. You say the are no risks. But what risks there could be? Not having arrived at the truth?
  • Varde
    326
    Neither science or logic can disprove [insert imaginary being here].

    The question isn't exactly a logical one.

    Why imagine God as oppose to ancient people, civilization before the universe?(What I'm suggesting here is that imagination could be more logic-attuned).

    How did God attain such power? Is there a logical lock that prevents power reaching the wrong hands?(A logic question based on an imaginary scenario).
  • SpaceDweller
    520
    What I'm suggesting here is that imagination could be more logic-attuned
    How did God attain such power? Is there a logical lock that prevents power reaching the wrong hands?(A logic question based on an imaginary scenario).
    Varde

    In same or similar way one could question the question of any of the great questions.

    But does that actually make sense?
    Just because there is no answer to great questions that doesn't mean the question is invalid or that it should be undermined.

    What risks you refer to? I can't see what kind of risk one runs if he make a change in beliefDecheleSchilder

    I'm suggesting to use reason rather than faith(or lack of it) to weight risks of 2 choices where each choice has equal chance of probability.
    Agnosticism is not an option.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    I'm suggesting to use reason rather than faith(or lack of it) to weight risks of 2 choices where each choice has equal chance of probability.SpaceDweller

    The positions don't seem to be equiprobable. 'God' is not even close to having been established; Genesis in being wrong shows divine inspiration to be lacking; a composite, such as Mind or a proton cannot be First and fundamental, for its parts would have to be more so; the universe is full of unintelligent design and its progression is seen to be purely physical, from the simple to the more complex.
  • Varde
    326
    the universe may not be what meets the eye, planets may be simulated there and as off, stars may be lights in the sky(given that if we reach them something is simulated).
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God?Shawn
    "God", undefined and vague, is not even an idea, just a cipher (i.e. mental crutch) outside the remits of both science and logic.

    What's the bedrock belief here that overrides one's reasons or lack thereof, of or for believing in God in face of no empirical evidence to attest to his existence.
    Childhood indoctrination. Mostly. In general, IME, people acquire habits of believing long before they habitualize thinking and even longer before, if they ever do, unlearn bad habits which block or impair thinking well for themselves.

    Is it really the argument from nothing, that something was created that backs everything God related up?
    I don't understand this question.
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    I don't understand this question.180 Proof

    When reading sparingly Hawking, the idea of a creator is embodied with the first cause. In other words from nothing, something came to be. Therefore, God must have been the cause of everything that had proceeded from his choice for genesis of the universe.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    Yeah, but why bother call the symmetry-breaking vacuum fluctuation "God" or "creator"? Why confuse the fundamentally physical with the wholly imaginary?
  • Shawn
    13.2k


    Yes, if you care @jorndoe elaborated on this if that's what you care to discuss.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    If you've read Stephen Hawking, then that's all the elaboration that's needed for this thread topic.
  • Shawn
    13.2k


    I'm closer to the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    I'm closer to the Principle of Sufficient Reason.Shawn
    What do you mean?
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    What do you mean?180 Proof

    Its just a principle that has ramifications for either proving or disproving the existence of God.

    Funny that it manifests in exploring (N)ature when trying to investigate God's workings.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    Quantum uncertainty (e.g. acausal (random!) vacuum fluctations —> spontaneous symmetry-breaking) proves the Insufficiency of "Sufficient Reason", no? And therefore "God" (i.e. creator, uncaused caused, unmoved mover, "fiat lux", etc) is an unneeded hypothesis (P. Laplace).
  • Shawn
    13.2k


    That's the gist of it. We don't entirely know what caused a non-zero-sum in antimatter and matter result; but, it's interesting to think that an observation was made during the annihilation. Was it God or an alien?
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    That's the gist of it.Shawn
    Non sequitur. Ad hoc clutching at straws. Woo-of the gaps. :roll:
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.