Speculation about God [Archive]

Lord Muck oGentry

15th October 2007, 12:26 AM

This always brings us back to the question of why? Why is there something when there could just as easily be nothing?

It depends on what we make of the question. It can be treated as a scientific question, to which a scientific answer can be offered:
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html

Or it can be treated as a question of a different sort:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/08/30/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing/

'Ultimately, the problem is that the question — “Why is there something rather than nothing?” — doesn’t make any sense. What kind of answer could possibly count as satisfying? What could a claim like “The most natural universe is one that doesn’t exist” possibly mean? As often happens, we are led astray by imagining that we can apply the kinds of language we use in talking about contingent pieces of the world around us to the universe as a whole. It makes sense to ask why this blog exists, rather than some other blog; but there is no external vantage point from which we can compare the relatively likelihood of different modes of existence for the universe.'

Count me with those who think that, unless we hear a convincing contrary account, the non-scientific question makes no sense.

The_Corinthian

15th October 2007, 10:01 AM

It depends on what we make of the question. It can be treated as a scientific question, to which a scientific answer can be offered:
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html

Or it can be treated as a question of a different sort:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/08/30/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing/

'Ultimately, the problem is that the question — “Why is there something rather than nothing?” — doesn’t make any sense. What kind of answer could possibly count as satisfying?

One that explains how we got from nothing to something, or one that proves that there's always been something and never nothing.

What could a claim like “The most natural universe is one that doesn’t exist” possibly mean? As often happens, we are led astray by imagining that we can apply the kinds of language we use in talking about contingent pieces of the world around us to the universe as a whole. It makes sense to ask why this blog exists, rather than some other blog; but there is no external vantage point from which we can compare the relatively likelihood of different modes of existence for the universe.'

Count me with those who think that, unless we hear a convincing contrary account, the non-scientific question makes no sense.

If it's so non-scientific, how come I was watching a Horizon programme yesterday on the net, in which the particle physicists can be quoted as saying, "how did something come out of nothing?", this was in relation to the Big Bang That's one of the things they hope to find out with CERN.

Dr B

15th October 2007, 10:36 AM

Like most, I'd class myself as an agnostic rather then an atheist, as while I severely doubt God exists, it can't be entirely rules out given that we know next to nothing about the Universe we live in.

Firstly, I'd say this statement is not entirely correct - we know a great deal about the universe. Obviously our knowledge is far from complete - but this is not evidence for a God.

Secondly - the first statement is a commonly made logical fallacy. People often think that just because something cannot be proven false, that it is equally probable to be true - this is not so! It is known as the argument to ignorance. The absence of evidence is logically meaningless.

If you take an 'on balance' view - you might say that the existence of a God has no empirical support - as such - there is no real reason to accept it. Ideas / claims / conclusions need positive evidence - not the absence of it.

A logical possibility is not the same as an evidenced probability. O0

Matt

15th October 2007, 11:18 AM

I have a simlar viewpiont onn the existence of god. I am an Agnostic (without knowledge) and as such I live my life as an Atheist (without God) The two are not mutually exclusive. However there is a perception that Agnostics are appeasers to faith and as such I dislike the baggage carried with such a label. Whilst I am tollerent of belief that does no harm I do object religious indoctirination of the young and consequently to faith schools especially those paid for from the public purse.

I take a similar stance on Russells Celestial Teapot, the Dragon in Carl Sagan's Garage and the flying spahgetti monster.

Just because I have no knowledge that something exists and am logically barred from having knowledge that it doesn't exist then that's no reason for me to entertain the possibility that it does exist.

Whilst logically that possibility allways exists for all that could be imagined to be consistent with verified observations the burden of such considerations is literally infinite - invisible this, intangible that, perverse afterlifes which reward sinners.

As such I respond more to the label of Atheist and yet once again this has negative connotations. It is a negative label that whilst is is accuprate in its description of me, it is hardly precise refering only to what I am not - a theist. I don't decribe myself as a non black, non female or non french. Instead when it comes to matters of belief I call myself a humanist.

Legaleagle

15th October 2007, 12:32 PM

Like most, I'd class myself as an agnostic rather then an atheist, as while I severely doubt God exists, it can't be entirely rules out given that we know next to nothing about the Universe we live in. I certainly don't believe that the Gods from all the world's religions exist.

If there is some kind of maker, I believe it would be something far beyond our ability to perceive, given our severely limited perceptions of the universe. Was it a conscious effort or did it simply happen, or has our universe and what lies beyond it always been there and always will be?

This always brings us back to the question of why? Why is there something when there could just as easily be nothing? If there was a creator of the universe, who created the creator?

Does anyone think it's possible we will ever know? I do wonder that in spite of everything we may one day learn, some questions may be too big to ever be answered. If they can never be answered, will the speculation of a creators existence ever end?

I noticed that you have used a quote from Richard Dawkins in your signature. Have you read "The God Delusion" yet? If not, I would recommend that you get hold of a copy.

The_Corinthian

15th October 2007, 10:19 PM

Firstly, I'd say this statement is not entirely correct - we know a great deal about the universe. Obviously our knowledge is far from complete - but this is not evidence for a God.

We know a great deal about the universe, but we still know only a fraction about it. I never said that this is evidence for the existence of God, I said that it means we can't entirely rule it out.

Secondly - the first statement is a commonly made logical fallacy. People often think that just because something cannot be proven false, that it is equally probable to be true - this is not so! It is known as the argument to ignorance. The absence of evidence is logically meaningless.

You seem to be basing your entire post on the assumption that I'm claiming God exists because he can't be proved to not exist. I've made no such claim or even indicated it. Unless you can tell me what caused the big bang, what caused the events that led to the big bang, and what caused the events that lef to that. We can't rule out the possibility of some kind of creator.

If you take an 'on balance' view - you might say that the existence of a God has no empirical support - as such - there is no real reason to accept it. Ideas / claims / conclusions need positive evidence - not the absence of it.

A logical possibility is not the same as an evidenced probability. O0

Here's another way to look at it. Human technology is accelerating profoundly. Futurologists claim that one day we will be able to manipulate matter on a quantum level, obtain immortality, create limitless power, and control and travel between all dimensions. Who's to say we won't one day create our own big bangs, our own universes, and beings to populate them? Who's to say this isn't how we came into existence, and will continue to happen on an infinite loop?

While I believe almost next to nothing of what the Bible says, it would an historic irony if the claim that 'God created us in his own image' turned out to be true, just as we may choose to populate our universes with being in our own image.

You will find no empirical value in modern religion for proving or disproving God. But our own philosophies and desire to grow and control 'everything' may be enough proof to not rule God out.

This of course raises the debate of whether God is supreme creator, or just 'our' creator. Perhaps we need to define more clearly what God is before we can even begin to contemplate whether it exists or not, as I said, it might be something beyond our perception, let alone our comprehension. Then again, one day we might meet God as our creator and also our equal.

The_Corinthian

15th October 2007, 10:21 PM

I noticed that you have used a quote from Richard Dawkins in your signature. Have you read "The God Delusion" yet? If not, I would recommend that you get hold of a copy.

I nearly did the other day, on your inspiration, I will. Thank you. :)

filippo lippi

16th October 2007, 07:52 AM

Douglas Adams imagined a race of people who believed that the universe had been sneezed out of some devine being's nose (Great Green Argleseizure?). Are you, TC, minded to believe in that? It is possible and the amount of evidence is about the same as in the scenario you describe.

Dr B

16th October 2007, 07:56 AM

We know a great deal about the universe, but we still know only a fraction about it. I never said that this is evidence for the existence of God, I said that it means we can't entirely rule it out.

What you dont understand is - there is no need to rule it in! You see, the absence of evidence is meaningless - it thus, means nothing either way. However, we do have lots of positive evidence for an alternative hypothesis - so on balance, and provisonally, it is extrememly unlikely there is a God. Not having any evidence does not mean one cannot rule it out - as it cannot be ruled in, in the first place :cheesy:

You seem to be basing your entire post on the assumption that I'm claiming God exists because he can't be proved to not exist. I've made no such claim or even indicated it.

You did and have - go back and read it - and see my comments above.

Unless you can tell me what caused the big bang, what caused the events that led to the big bang, and what caused the events that lef to that. We can't rule out the possibility of some kind of creator.

Dont you see - a creator is NOT an explanation of anything.....so your not explaining anything. Also go and read some logic - I think you will benefit greatly from that. Remember the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence......O0

Something about a flying spaghetti monster springs to mind.....

Cuddles

16th October 2007, 10:40 AM

Unless you can tell me what caused the big bang, what caused the events that led to the big bang, and what caused the events that lef to that.

Time did not exist before the big bang. The question of what came before it is makes as much sense as asking what is north of the north pole.

We can't rule out the possibility of some kind of creator.

It's not a matter of ruling it out, it's a matter of there not being a single piece of evidence to suggest one exists. By your logic we should all accept the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the teapot orbiting Pluto simply because we can't prove that they don't exist.

Here's another way to look at it. Human technology is accelerating profoundly. Futurologists claim that one day we will be able to manipulate matter on a quantum level, obtain immortality, create limitless power, and control and travel between all dimensions. Who's to say we won't one day create our own big bangs, our own universes, and beings to populate them?

Futurologists also claimed that we'd be living on the Moon and flying around in atomic cars while robots did all our housework.

Who's to say this isn't how we came into existence, and will continue to happen on an infinite loop?

Wrong question. The correct question is who's to say this is how we came into existence. Anyone can just make something up and claim it's possible. That doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. This is where that evidence thing comes in handy.

You will find no empirical value in modern religion for proving or disproving God. But our own philosophies and desire to grow and control 'everything' may be enough proof to not rule God out.

This just doesn't make sense.

This of course raises the debate of whether God is supreme creator, or just 'our' creator.

No it doesn't. There is no point debating what colour the teapot orbiting Pluto is until you prove that there is a teapot there in the first place.

Perhaps we need to define more clearly what God is before we can even begin to contemplate whether it exists or not, as I said, it might be something beyond our perception, let alone our comprehension.

Many people have defined gods. They are either provably wrong or are designed purposely to be unprovable.

Then again, one day we might meet God as our creator and also our equal.

And we might all be eaten by sharks with frickin' laser beams attatched to their heads. Just because you can write something doesn't mean it is actually a useful statement.

Lord Muck oGentry

16th October 2007, 07:03 PM

One that explains how we got from nothing to something, or one that proves that there's always been something and never nothing.

If it's so non-scientific, how come I was watching a Horizon programme yesterday on the net, in which the particle physicists can be quoted as saying, "how did something come out of nothing?", this was in relation to the Big Bang That's one of the things they hope to find out with CERN.

TC,

Perhaps we are at cross-purposes. I was contrasting scientific approaches to the question with nonscientific approaches.

Unless I'm missing something, Stenger is sketching an answer to the question, scientifically understood, how we can get from nothing to something. Whether it's a good answer is another question, which I am content to leave to the scientists.

As for the particle physicists you mention, I imagine that they too are taking the question to be a scientific one, since, as you say, they are hoping to get answers from CERN. But I see that you have taken up the matter of the Big Bang with Cuddles.

The_Corinthian

16th October 2007, 08:18 PM

What you dont understand is - there is no need to rule it in! You see, the absence of evidence is meaningless - it thus, means nothing either way. However, we do have lots of positive evidence for an alternative hypothesis - so on balance, and provisonally, it is extrememly unlikely there is a God. Not having any evidence does not mean one cannot rule it out - as it cannot be ruled in, in the first place :cheesy:

Unlikely doesn't mean the same as impossible, for someone so well versed in "logic", I would have thought you'd have understood this. I note with interest that you've completely ignored the point that one day humans might become creators themselves. If it may be possible that we can do it, who's to say it isn't possible that that's how we came to being?

Our very existence and potential is evidence in itself that such a possibility may ring true.

You did and have - go back and read it - and see my comments above.

Can't see it, how about you quote it?

Dont you see - a creator is NOT an explanation of anything.....so your not explaining anything.

If it turned out to be true, it would possibly be an explanation of everything. I didn't set out to explain anything, only speculate on the possibility of a creator.

Also go and read some logic - I think you will benefit greatly from that.

How does one "read some logic"?

Remember the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence......O0

Something about a flying spaghetti monster springs to mind.....

A creator is one of several possibly explanation for how we came into being. We have no evidence that the Higgs boson exists, only theories that make the Higgs boson a possible piece of an incomplete jigsaw. It's entirely possible that a creator could equally be a missing piece in the puzzle of how we came to being. It's no coincidence that the Higgs Boson is often referred to as the 'God Particle'.

So claiming something doesn't exist because there's no physical evidence of it, doesn't seem to be enough. The fact remains that while it's improbable there's a creator, it's not impossible while there is still room for doubt.

Not even Steven Hawking will rule out the possibility of a creator. Only pseudo scientists like yourself who claim to be masters of logic would arrogantly dare to do so without all the answers.

The_Corinthian

16th October 2007, 09:18 PM

Time did not exist before the big bang. The question of what came before it is makes as much sense as asking what is north of the north pole.

I didn't say what came before it, I asked what caused it? Can you answer that?

It's not a matter of ruling it out, it's a matter of there not being a single piece of evidence to suggest one exists. By your logic we should all accept the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the teapot orbiting Pluto simply because we can't prove that they don't exist.

So Higg's Boson doesn't exist, and the £6,000,000,000 they'd spent on looking for it is a waste of time then? There's no proof of it, no ones ever seen one, it just fills a convenient missing part of the puzzle that fits the hole.

A teapot orbiting pluto wouldn't fill in any gaps in explaining the origins of the universe, and we know enough about our insignificant section of it to assume there isn't. We don't know anywhere near enough about the universe to rule out a 'God shaped' piece of the puzzle.

Futurologists also claimed that we'd be living on the Moon and flying around in atomic cars while robots did all our housework.

The first two are far from unrealistic, and will very likely happen in the near future, and the third is unnecessary but would be quite possible should we feel inclined to go down that route. If this is your argument for futurologists being of no consequence, then it's a pretty poor one.

Wrong question. The correct question is who's to say this is how we came into existence. Anyone can just make something up and claim it's possible. That doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. This is where that evidence thing comes in handy.

Ok, show me your evidence of how the universe came into existence.

This just doesn't make sense.

To you maybe. Most people find the concept that we ourselves could become creators in our own right, pretty easy to grasp.

No it doesn't. There is no point debating what colour the teapot orbiting Pluto is until you prove that there is a teapot there in the first place.

I'm tired of using the Higgs Boson example, so let's got for Dark Matter. We have never seen it, and until recently we didn't have an ounce of evidence to support it's existence, other then another large gap in the puzzle that needed filling. Dark matter is one of several explanations, but currently the most supported to explain expansion of the universe.

If scientists followed your line of thinking that, "there's no evidence so it can't exist" or, "there's no point debating it until we know it exists". Then we not only wouldn't we have had the Dark Matter theory, we wouldn't have set about trying to prove or disprove it, and as a result found some evidence to proving it.

Many people have defined gods. They are either provably wrong or are designed purposely to be unprovable.

Pure conjecture, which probably sums up best of all your inability to make a well reasoned argument, by the simple fact that you've missed out the option of 'people who define God as something that may or may not exist'.

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired."
- Stephen W. Hawking

And we might all be eaten by sharks with frickin' laser beams attatched to their heads. Just because you can write something doesn't mean it is actually a useful statement.

As you've adequately proved several times over, particularly well with the observation itself.

Lord Muck oGentry

17th October 2007, 12:06 AM

I didn't say what came before it, I asked what caused it? Can you answer that?

TC, you said:

"Unless you can tell me what caused the big bang, what caused the events that led to the big bang, and what caused the events that led to that. We can't rule out the possibility of some kind of creator." ( Italics added)

Obviously, I don't speak for Cuddles, who needs no help from me in any case.
But the language you used implies a series of events leading up to and therefore before the Big Bang. You may not have said what came before, but you certainly asked.

BillB

17th October 2007, 03:49 AM

Hi Corinthian,

Are you really a believer, because you sure don’t read well as a skeptic?

BillB >:D

ZERO

17th October 2007, 05:34 AM

God was invented to explain the unknown.
Thor once made thunder and lightning, but now we understand storm formation. No more Thor.
We don't use god to explain life on this earth anymore or how the earth itself came to be. We understand the natural principles that gave rise to them.
When the Big Bang and all other things are explained with a Grand Unified Theory there will be no more god.
God exists in the unknown. Every advance in knowledge has disproved god and proven natural law.

I think it's hard to allow for the existance of something that is disproved at every testable occasion.

Dr B

17th October 2007, 08:08 AM

Unlikely doesn't mean the same as impossible, for someone so well versed in "logic", I would have thought you'd have understood this.

eerrrr thats my point (which you keep failing to understand). Impossible does not mean likely or even evidenced to any degree. You see - every time you say something - you just show you really do not understand logic at all. I can see you are greatly confused on these matters.

Why rule something in as a viable alternative - when there is no evidence to do so - this just generates a false premise. Ever heard of Occam?

I note with interest that you've completely ignored the point that one day humans might become creators themselves. If it may be possible that we can do it, who's to say it isn't possible that that's how we came to being?

No - it was a ridiculous point - because your reasoning is flawed - all that follows is folly - so there's no need to go any further.

Our very existence and potential is evidence in itself that such a possibility may ring true.

:cheesy: what, how, when, why? My hunch is you have no idea what you mean here. Psycho-babble.

If it turned out to be true, it would possibly be an explanation of everything. I didn't set out to explain anything, only speculate on the possibility of a creator.

Circular reasoning - if it were true....errrr...then its true.....

How does one "read some logic"?

I think this answers my questions ;D

It's entirely possible that a creator could equally be a missing piece in the puzzle of how we came to being.

What evidence suggests this - all i can see here is you repeatedly stating it - I have seen no evidenced for your assertion?

So claiming something doesn't exist because there's no physical evidence of it, doesn't seem to be enough.

No - I am saying there is no reason to assume it does exist - I am not claiming it does not - again this is a logical position.

The fact remains that while it's improbable there's a creator, it's not impossible while there is still room for doubt.

The doubt as you say is logical doubt - not evidential doubt.

Not even Steven Hawking will rule out the possibility of a creator. Only pseudo scientists like yourself who claim to be masters of logic would arrogantly dare to do so without all the answers.

Keep the ad homs to yourself (thats another logical term by the way). You just dont understand logic or the position i am outlining to you. I am not a pseudo anything - you just cannot understand what I am explaining to you. I have never at any point in this discussion ruled out anything - so you see - you are now arguing against your own confusion - not anything I said. Thats probably why your feel so 'pseudo' about it. ;D

Its the difference between probabilities, possibilities and plausibilities. As I said earlier, logical possibilities are not the same as evidenced probabilities. It is possible that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster......but is it likely to be true? According to your logic the answer is a clear yes

Edit - there are some documents on the main website that I hope should be of help for you while your learn about reasoning and logic. Some outline basic pitfalls of thinking. Take a read - I hope you enjoy it.

BillB

17th October 2007, 09:36 AM

Corinthian
Not even Steven Hawking will rule out the possibility of a creator. Only pseudo scientists like yourself who claim to be masters of logic would arrogantly dare to do so without all the answers.

Yes I agree but he is firstly a very confused person (requiring torture) with a Dr in front of his name and secondly he is in my opinion a pseudo scientist. Now if the two of us agree and a few others then perhaps we are correct!! ;D

The Pseudo Inquisition rules KO!!

Dr B

17th October 2007, 09:46 AM

Bill

Behave yourself or go back to PASSA where the level of debate is as low as a snakes arse....:cheesy:...and thus hopefully not too much of a stretch for you.

(sorry could not resist)

BillB

17th October 2007, 10:21 AM

EVIL EVIL (BUT NOT EVIL ENOUGH, NOT EVEN EVIL-KERNEVIL) Dr B ;D ;D ;D

I'm glad you actually have a sense of humor, but remember matches are dangerous and we wouldn't want you burning down Rome like what NERO did? >:D >:D O0

(sorry could not resist)

Cuddles

17th October 2007, 11:05 AM

I didn't say what came before it, I asked what caused it? Can you answer that?

As I said, it is not possible to answer a nonsensical question. Since there is no before, there cannot be a cause. Of course, there are some theories that postulate other time-like dimensions and therefore something could cause the big bang, multi-dimensional M-branes, for example. However, none of these theories have any evidence to support them yet, they are purely mathematical constructs and so there is no point pretending they answer anything.

So Higg's Boson doesn't exist, and the £6,000,000,000 they'd spent on looking for it is a waste of time then? There's no proof of it, no ones ever seen one, it just fills a convenient missing part of the puzzle that fits the hole.

A teapot orbiting pluto wouldn't fill in any gaps in explaining the origins of the universe, and we know enough about our insignificant section of it to assume there isn't. We don't know anywhere near enough about the universe to rule out a 'God shaped' piece of the puzzle.

What the hell does the Higgs boson hae to do with anything? It is predicted by theories which have lots of evidence to support them and provides a possible answer to an interesting question. There is no evidence for any god at all, and there is no question which requires one as an answer. In fact, god is not even an attempt to answer a question since all it does is move the question somewhere else. It is an utterly pointless hypothesis with no evidential support which provides no understanding of anything. There is simply no reason to assume any kind of god exists.

The first two are far from unrealistic, and will very likely happen in the near future, and the third is unnecessary but would be quite possible should we feel inclined to go down that route. If this is your argument for futurologists being of no consequence, then it's a pretty poor one.

They were wrong. The things they said would happen didn't, and are still unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. We haven't even been back to the Moon, let alone made it habitable. As for flying atomic cars, I really don't know what to say. Anyone who takes them seriously outside of cartoons has serious issues with reality.

Ok, show me your evidence of how the universe came into existence.

I am not the one making the claim. If you say god created the universe, you have to provide the evidence. Without evidence, there is no reason to take it any more seriously than being sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

To you maybe. Most people find the concept that we ourselves could become creators in our own right, pretty easy to grasp.

That's not what the paragraph I replied to said. What I replied to was an incoherent sentence that said something about our philosophy not disproving god. I honestly have no idea what you were trying to say here.

I'm tired of using the Higgs Boson example, so let's got for Dark Matter. We have never seen it, and until recently we didn't have an ounce of evidence to support it's existence, other then another large gap in the puzzle that needed filling. Dark matter is one of several explanations, but currently the most supported to explain expansion of the universe.

If scientists followed your line of thinking that, "there's no evidence so it can't exist" or, "there's no point debating it until we know it exists". Then we not only wouldn't we have had the Dark Matter theory, we wouldn't have set about trying to prove or disprove it, and as a result found some evidence to proving it.

This is just as bad as your Higgs boson exaple. There is evidence for dark matter. Dark matter was only thought up because it explains some observations that couldn't be explained by existing theories. The more you go on about this, the more obvious it is you have no idea what you are talking about. It's really very simple. Dark matter - evidence. God - no evidence. Which one should scientists take seriously?

Pure conjecture, which probably sums up best of all your inability to make a well reasoned argument, by the simple fact that you've missed out the option of 'people who define God as something that may or may not exist'.

And so begin the ad homs. And that has to be the most utterly meaningless definition of anything that I have ever seen.

As you've adequately proved several times over, particularly well with the observation itself.

Oh dear, oh dear. Do you really have nothing better than "I know you are but what am I"? Seriously, try rising out of the playground, read what I actually say and then try making a sensible argument.

The_Corinthian

17th October 2007, 04:12 PM

eerrrr thats my point (which you keep failing to understand). Impossible does not mean likely or even evidenced to any degree. You see - every time you say something - you just show you really do not understand logic at all. I can see you are greatly confused on these matters.

I guess I don't, please explain to me with your superior logic how 'unlikely' means the same as 'impossible'.

Why rule something in as a viable alternative - when there is no evidence to do so - this just generates a false premise. Ever heard of Occam?

Because ruling out something just because it is unlikely is sheer stupidity.

No - it was a ridiculous point - because your reasoning is flawed - all that follows is folly - so there's no need to go any further.

If it's to rediculous and flawed, it shouldn't be hard for you to explain why. Or is it simply that you can't?

:cheesy: what, how, when, why? My hunch is you have no idea what you mean here. Psycho-babble.

I know exactly what I mean, it would seem you're the one struggling with it. You can call it rediculous, flawed, and psycho-babble all you want, the fact remains that you don't actually back any of it up. 'You're wrong so i'm not answering, la la la!' is hardly a wondeful debating technique.

Circular reasoning - if it were true....errrr...then its true.....

OK, please point out the flaw in the reasoning that truth is truth.

I think this answers my questions ;D

For a start, "go and read some logic" isn't a question. Once again we have you avoiding the questions by fobbing it off. This is a depressingly poor debating technique for a master of logic.

What evidence suggests this - all i can see here is you repeatedly stating it - I have seen no evidenced for your assertion?

There is not enough evidence to say, that's why it can't be ruled out. You are claiming one possibly explanation for the origins of the universe is wrong, when you have no idea what the right explanation is. Where's your evidence for how the universe started?

No - I am saying there is no reason to assume it does exist - I am not claiming it does not - again this is a logical position.

No, you said "there's no reason to rule it in", in other words you've already made up you mind without being in full posession of the facts. Not what I call a logical position.

The doubt as you say is logical doubt - not evidential doubt.

And where have I claimed there is evidential doubt?

Keep the ad homs to yourself (thats another logical term by the way). You just dont understand logic or the position i am outlining to you.

You're right there, I often have trouble understanding people who contradict themselves, and can't back up what they say.

I am not a pseudo anything - you just cannot understand what I am explaining to you. I have never at any point in this discussion ruled out anything - so you see - you are now arguing against your own confusion - not anything I said. Thats probably why your feel so 'pseudo' about it. ;D

You've said there's no reason to rule it in. If you're not saying here that there's no reason to consider God as a Possibility, then you are saying that it's possible there may be a God. In which case, you are not saying anything I haven't already said from the start.

Mt guess is you leapt in without thinking, assuming I was trying to make an argument for the existence of God.

Its the difference between probabilities, possibilities and plausibilities. As I said earlier, logical possibilities are not the same as evidenced probabilities. It is possible that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster......but is it likely to be true? According to your logic the answer is a clear yes

Where have I said it is likely God exists? Again, more evidence that you have jumped in without reading it properly. I have never said or indicated there is an equal probability God exists, that is just an assuption you have made from the start.

Edit - there are some documents on the main website that I hope should be of help for you while your learn about reasoning and logic. Some outline basic pitfalls of thinking. Take a read - I hope you enjoy it.

I'll let you finished with them first, let me know when you've read about how basing your arguments on assumptions and conjecture aren't logical.

Mongrel

17th October 2007, 04:28 PM

This is just as bad as your Higgs boson exaple. There is evidence for dark matter. Dark matter was only thought up because it explains some observations that couldn't be explained by existing theories.

A quick Google found a couple of clear, concise explainations of "How we're inferring the existence of DM" at National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060822-dark-matter.html) and, of course, Bad Astronomy (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/05/15/hubble-finds-dark-matter-smoke-ring/)

Dr B

17th October 2007, 04:48 PM

I guess I don't, please explain to me with your superior logic how 'unlikely' means the same as 'impossible'.

Eeerrrr I never said that. I said possible does not equal probable - this is what you keep failing to understand. Again - a logical possibility is not the same as an evidenced probability. This is the third time I have said this - please read it and think on it.

Because ruling out something just because it is unlikely is sheer stupidity.

Who did that? Not me. I have said repeatedly its about what you rule in.......and on what grounds. Go back and read.

If it's to rediculous and flawed, it shouldn't be hard for you to explain why. Or is it simply that you can't?

I have explained why its flawed - you are just not reading or understanding my points.

I know exactly what I mean, it would seem you're the one struggling with it. You can call it rediculous, flawed, and psycho-babble all you want, the fact remains that you don't actually back any of it up. 'You're wrong so i'm not answering, la la la!' is hardly a wondeful debating technique.

On reflection I think you will find you're the one not answering the why, how, when, where. Maybe you would like to try now?

For a start, "go and read some logic" isn't a question.

I never said it was....so what's your point? It's a statement and peice of advice - you would do well to give it a whirl O0

Once again we have you avoiding the questions by fobbing it off. This is a depressingly poor debating technique for a master of logic.

You really are struggling - you see - your not reading what I'm writing and you do not understand what logic is. Do try harder. O0

There is not enough evidence to say, that's why it can't be ruled out. You are claiming one possibly explanation for the origins of the universe is wrong, when you have no idea what the right explanation is. Where's your evidence for how the universe started?

There is no evidence for your version - so no need to rule it in. Other competing theories should enjoy your attention.

No, you said "there's no reason to rule it in", in other words you've already made up you mind without being in full posession of the facts. Not what I call a logical position.

Because you don't understand logic - why generate nonsense theories for things that don't exist? You are free to spend your time doing it - but don't for one min think it is legitimate reasoning.

You're right there, I often have trouble understanding people who contradict themselves, and can't back up what they say.

That's because you dont listen.........

You've said there's no reason to rule it in. If you're not saying here that there's no reason to consider God as a Possibility, then you are saying that it's possible there may be a God. In which case, you are not saying anything I haven't already said from the start.

No - close but no cigar. Think about the logical difference between a purely theoretical possibility and a highly evidenced probability - are you saying they are the same thing? Oh - and dont forget about the flying spaghetti monster O0

The_Corinthian

17th October 2007, 05:05 PM

As I said, it is not possible to answer a nonsensical question. Since there is no before, there cannot be a cause.

And yet you then go on to give an example of how people already have tried to answer it.

Of course, there are some theories that postulate other time-like dimensions and therefore something could cause the big bang, multi-dimensional M-branes, for example. However, none of these theories have any evidence to support them yet, they are purely mathematical constructs and so there is no point pretending they answer anything.

Who's pretending to answer anything? M-branes would explain why gravity is so weak, so it does have evidence, it's one possible peice of the puzzle. JUst like the theory of a creator, there's not enought evidence to support or dismiss it.

It seems a stunning contradicion to me that you're not prepared to rubbish the above theories, yet you are God. Both as you claim have no evidence, so why is one acceptable and the other not?

What the hell does the Higgs boson hae to do with anything? It is predicted by theories which have lots of evidence to support them and provides a possible answer to an interesting question.

"If the Higgs doesn't turn up, then the LHC will explain the origin of mass one way or the other", "there may not be a theory of everything, equally there might be" - Dr. Brian Cox - Manchester University - Particle Physicist

There is no evidence for any god at all, and there is no question which requires one as an answer.

Yes there is, 'how did the universe come into existence?'

In fact, god is not even an attempt to answer a question since all it does is move the question somewhere else. It is an utterly pointless hypothesis with no evidential support which provides no understanding of anything. There is simply no reason to assume any kind of god exists.

Who's assuming he does? You're the only one making assumptions, by ruling him out completely.

They were wrong. The things they said would happen didn't, and are still unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. We haven't even been back to the Moon, let alone made it habitable. As for flying atomic cars, I really don't know what to say. Anyone who takes them seriously outside of cartoons has serious issues with reality.

So you're saying we will never live on the moon, and we will never have robot cleaners?

I am not the one making the claim.

Neither am I, where have I claimed that God exists?

If you say god created the universe, you have to provide the evidence. Without evidence, there is no reason to take it any more seriously than being sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Isn't science about looking for evidence? By your reasoning, we should have dismissed the idea of Dark Matter, as at one time it was only a theory with no evidence.

That's not what the paragraph I replied to said. What I replied to was an incoherent sentence that said something about our philosophy not disproving god. I honestly have no idea what you were trying to say here.

our own philosophies and desire to grow and control 'everything' may be enough proof to not rule God out.

If was refering to the theory that we may one day become creators ourselves, and therefore it can't be ruled out that this may have already happened. It's not my theory, it's not even a new one. This is probably one of the most famous stories based on the theory.

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

This is just as bad as your Higgs boson exaple. There is evidence for dark matter.

Yes, but there was a time when it wasn't, I suspected you would ignore that part.

Dark matter was only thought up because it explains some observations that couldn't be explained by existing theories.

Hows that any different from a theory about a creator?

The more you go on about this, the more obvious it is you have no idea what you are talking about. It's really very simple. Dark matter - evidence. God - no evidence. Which one should scientists take seriously?

Again, there was a time when there was no evidence for Dark Matter. You don't have any evidence about how the universe began, and yet you've already made up your mind. We can create things, you've yet to explain why it's not possible that something created the universe we live in.

And so begin the ad homs. And that has to be the most utterly meaningless definition of anything that I have ever seen.

In your opinion. Most people don't find it hard to understand the mindset that God may or may not exist.

Oh dear, oh dear. Do you really have nothing better than "I know you are but what am I"? Seriously, try rising out of the playground, read what I actually say and then try making a sensible argument.

Of course, and you don't do anything of the sort do you? Sorry I must have mistook, "And we might all be eaten by sharks with frickin' laser beams attatched to their heads. Just because you can write something doesn't mean it is actually a useful statement." as a childish and pointless statement. I didn't realise it was your attempt at a valuable insite.

The fact that many of the greatest scientific minds in the world aren't prepared to rule out God, and yet you are, must mean you have some knowledge that they lack. I'd really like to hear it.

Dr B

17th October 2007, 05:11 PM

Is it me - or is no one here ruling out the 'possibility' of a God? As far as i can see - no one has ever ruled the 'possibility' out - have they? ???

Legaleagle

17th October 2007, 05:24 PM

The_Corinthian

17th October 2007, 05:31 PM

Eeerrrr I never said that. I said possible does not equal probable - this is what you keep failing to understand. Again - a logical possibility is not the same as an evidenced probability. This is the third time I have said this - please read it and think on it.

You keep saying it, yet you fail to say why you keep saying it, or indeed where I have contradicted it. Seems to me you're just arguing for arguments sake.

Who did that? Not me. I have said repeatedly its about what you rule in.......and on what grounds. Go back and read.

So what have I ruled in as a certainty?

I have explained why its flawed - you are just not reading or understanding my points.

You have not explained anywhere why the theory that we may one day create our own universes is flawed.

On reflection I think you will find you're the one not answering the why, how, when, where. Maybe you would like to try now?

Give an example, go on, it would be a nice change.

I never said it was....so what's your point? It's a statement and peice of advice - you would do well to give it a whirl O0

Actually you said, "I think this answers my questions". I find incoherent advice hard to follow, for all your floundering you still haven't explained what you meant by "go read some logic".

You really are struggling - you see - your not reading what I'm writing and you do not understand what logic is. Do try harder. O0

Yet more floundering. Yawn.

There is no evidence for your version - so no need to rule it in.

What version? Still making the assumption that I am convinced there is a God aren't we? Despite the fact I've made it repeatedly clear this isn't the case. You're starting to really give logic a bad name.
[/quote]

Other competing theories should enjoy your attention.

They do, where have I said they don't?

Because you don't understand logic - why generate nonsense theories for things that don't exist? You are free to spend your time doing it - but don't for one min think it is legitimate reasoning.

So you're now categorically saying God doesn't exist? Your argument gets more inconsistant by the post.

No - close but no cigar. Think about the logical difference between a purely theoretical possibility and a highly evidenced probability - are you saying they are the same thing?

Are you saying I'm not? I'd ask for examples again, but it's getting obvious by now that you're not big on that. You seem to be saying less with every post, accusing me of one thing after another and refusing to offer any evidence when challenged.

You are to logic what George Bush is to leadership. It might be a good idea to start practising what you so poorly and arrogantly preach.

The_Corinthian

17th October 2007, 05:38 PM

The Corinthian, you have adopted, knowingly or unknowingly, the argument which I think was devised by Thomas Aquinas in the middle ages known as the First Cause, Prime Mover or Cosmological Argument.

This basically boils down to the proposition that:
(1) everything has a cause
(2) nothing can cause itself
(3) a causal chain cannot be of infinite length
(4) so there must be a First Cause or Prime Mover that caused everything to come into being.

Aquinas postulates that the Prime Mover or First Cause has to be God QED.

The argument is so full of holes that it is like a philosophical sieve. (1) contradicts (4), (2) contradicts (4), (3) and is an unproven assertion.

The difficulty most Sceptics have with God, and which I think people on this thread are trying to tell you, is that if you posit a God, it explains nothing because you then have to explain where God came from.

Hope this makes sense;).

I haven't adopted anything, unless we can be absolutely certain, it's stupid to rule out any improbability.

Dr B

17th October 2007, 05:43 PM

This is my last post on the matter - because you are making no attempt to read anything anyone is positng here.

You keep saying it, yet you fail to say why you keep saying it, or indeed where I have contradicted it. Seems to me you're just arguing for arguments sake.

Because you dont understand the difference between possibility and probability.

Let me put it to you this way. Is the idea of a flying spaghetti monster equally probable, as a creator of the universe, to your notion of a God, and equally probable to the models proposed by modern Physics. In addition, ask yourself, How do we falsify God and the FSM?

So what have I ruled in as a certainty?

I never, ever used the word 'certainty' - you see - you still dont get it. :cheesy:

When I said you should go and read some logic - I was pointing out that you do not seem to understand the nature of scientific / philosophical arguments - both of which should recruit logic into them (and science would recruit evidence as well). It is a difficult thing to learn - and will make your head hurt - but it is worth the effort.

What version? Still making the assumption that I am convinced there is a God aren't we? Despite the fact I've made it repeatedly clear this isn't the case.

No - you are trying to make a philosophical case for a God, based on a whole series of fallacies.

So you're now categorically saying God doesn't exist? Your argument gets more inconsistant by the post.

Your're being intellectually dishonest here. I have never said this and your failure to actually read and understand what is being said shows you are out of your depth. I challenge you to find the point at which i made that claim.

Please keep all other ad-homs to yourself - as all it shows is that you're really not clever enough for this conversation O0

Dr B

17th October 2007, 05:45 PM

I haven't adopted anything, unless we can be absolutely certain, it's stupid to rule out any improbability.

No one has said that.....so who and what are you arguing against? it seems to change everytime you get challenged - luckily we spot this 8)

The_Corinthian

17th October 2007, 05:46 PM

No one has said that.....so who and what are you arguing against? it seems to change everytime you get challenged - luckily we spot this 8)

I started the thread, so what are you arguing against?

Dr B

17th October 2007, 05:56 PM

Everyone is making a different point - mine is a simple one. I am saying that 'not knowing' - due to an absence of evidence is meaningless. Intentionally or not, your earlier postings suggested that 'not knowing' makes a God possible (and even likely). It's the old God of the gaps argument.

That fundamental assumption is flawed - while 'not knowing' means 'anything is possible' it does not make them likely or probable. In a meaningless state like this - you are just as likely to be wrong than right - but when added to the data (from Physics) that the others are discussing with you - the physics model is far more likely / plausible. Others are arguing different points with you and I am leaving that to you and them.

So try to be clear on whether one is making a philosophical or scientific argument (or trying to foster one) - but even if its merely a philosophical argument - it must still follow logic.

OK - I said two posts ago that would be last comment. This now is. I wish you well with the remainder of your discussion with the others - you're going to need it. O0

The_Corinthian

17th October 2007, 06:16 PM

This is my last post on the matter - because you are making no attempt to read anything anyone is positng here.

You haven't said anything of substance to take in. All you've said so far is, "read some logic" and "you dont understand the difference between possibility and probability."[/quote]

Because you dont understand the difference between possibility and probability.

There it is again. You keep on saying this, and I keep on asking you to give me an example of where I haven't understood it. YOU STILL CAN'T PROVIDE ME WITH ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE!

Let me put it to you this way. Is the idea of a flying spaghetti monster equally probable, as a creator of the universe, to your notion of a God, and equally probable to the models proposed by modern Physics. In addition, ask yourself, How do we falsify God and the FSM?

It isn't equally probably though, I've never suggested otherwise!!!! You keep claiming that this is my argument or notion, without ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to support it. You're still making assumptions, accusing me of something I haven't suggested, and the making an argument against it.

I have never claimed that the theory of God is of equal footing with other theories of the universe!

I never, ever used the word 'certainty' - you see - you still dont get it. :cheesy:

I never said you did. You haven't given me anything to 'get'. yet more tiresome conjecture.

When I said you should go and read some logic - I was pointing out that you do not seem to understand the nature of scientific / philosophical arguments - both of which should recruit logic into them (and science would recruit evidence as well). It is a difficult thing to learn - and will make your head hurt - but it is worth the effort.

Just another baseless argument which you can't back up. You haven't given one example of where I am supposed to be wrong.

No - you are trying to make a philosophical case for a God, based on a whole series of fallacies.

You say fallacies, yet you don't say what the fallacies are. Yet more baseless arguments.

Your're being intellectually dishonest here. I have never said this and your failure to actually read and understand what is being said shows you are out of your depth. I challenge you to find the point at which i made that claim.

So when you said, "why generate nonsense theories for things that don't exist?", what were you referring to? I don't even know why I'm bothering to ask, given your track record.

Please keep all other ad-homs to yourself - as all it shows is that you're really not clever enough for this conversation O0

This coming from someone who's main argument seems to be, "You're wrong and that's it, you wouldn't understand why, so I don't need to explain or back up anything I say".

You accuse me of one thing after another, and as soon as I challenge you on any one of them, your answer is that I don't understand. This is the kind of piss-poor arguments I expect from believers in the paranormal, the only difference is that your opinions are pointless and amazingly arrogant with it.

The_Corinthian

17th October 2007, 06:23 PM

Everyone is making a different point - mine is a simple one. I am saying that 'not knowing' - due to an absence of evidence is meaningless. Intentionally or not, your earlier postings suggested that 'not knowing' makes a God possible (and even likely). It's the old God of the gaps argument.

QUOTE IT!

That fundamental assumption is flawed - while 'not knowing' means 'anything is possible' it does not make them likely or probable. In a meaningless state like this - you are just as likely to be wrong than right - but when added to the data (from Physics) that the others are discussing with you - the physics model is far more likely / plausible. Others are arguing different points with you and I am leaving that to you and them.

So try to be clear on whether one is making a philosophical or scientific argument (or trying to foster one) - but even if its merely a philosophical argument - it must still follow logic.

WHERE HAVE I DISPUTED THIS!! EXAMPLE, QUOTE, ANYTHING!

OK - I said two posts ago that would be last comment. This now is. I wish you well with the remainder of your discussion with the others - you're going to need it. O0

I dount I will, everyone else seems to be contributing by making points and useful observations.

filippo lippi

17th October 2007, 07:17 PM

I'm looking forward to the day when I snot up a new universe

Lord Muck oGentry

18th October 2007, 01:31 AM

The difficulty most Sceptics have with God, and which I think people on this thread are trying to tell you, is that if you posit a God, it explains nothing because you then have to explain where God came from.

Hope this makes sense;).

Hits the nail on the head IMO.

How we got here is a question of history, not philosophy.

Cuddles

18th October 2007, 11:21 AM

And yet you then go on to give an example of how people already have tried to answer it.

Actually, I haven't. In order to hypothesise about the origin of the universe, theories like M-theory require at least one more time-like dimension, as opposed to spatial ones. This means the question is no longer meaningless, because it is possible for things to happen before time exists. In effect, there are two different times. However, while theories like this are nice, there is no evidence to support them, so until there is, the question remains a pointless one.

Who's pretending to answer anything? M-branes would explain why gravity is so weak, so it does have evidence, it's one possible peice of the puzzle. JUst like the theory of a creator, there's not enought evidence to support or dismiss it.

It seems a stunning contradicion to me that you're not prepared to rubbish the above theories, yet you are God. Both as you claim have no evidence, so why is one acceptable and the other not?

They're not. They are interesting theories with no evidence to support them. That is all I accept them as. If they provide some evidence, I will consider them further. The difference is that M-theory at least has the possibility of providing evidence in the future, so it is worth considering as a theory. God does not make predictions and no-one even tries to provide evidence. Until this changes, it is a worthless idea and not worth taking seriously.

"If the Higgs doesn't turn up, then the LHC will explain the origin of mass one way or the other", "there may not be a theory of everything, equally there might be" - Dr. Brian Cox - Manchester University - Particle Physicist

I suggest you read up about the non sequiteur falacy.

Yes there is, 'how did the universe come into existence?'

Again, if there is no time, there can be no cause. "How" just doesn't make sense.

Who's assuming he does? You're the only one making assumptions, by ruling him out completely.

This is what we call a straw man. No-one has ruled anything out completely. Please argue about what we actually say, not your own imagination.

So you're saying we will never live on the moon, and we will never have robot cleaners?

No, I'm saying that futurologists predicited that we would be doing this by the 1990s. They were wrong. Incredibly wrong. Why would you take anything they say seriously if they were so amazingly wrong last time?

Neither am I, where have I claimed that God exists?

You have claimed that it could exist. I see no evidence to suppose this is the case. Until I see such evidence, the concept of god is utterly pointless. If you don't have any evidence, why would you suppose god exists? I have no evidence for teapots orbiting Pluto, should I suppose they exist?

Isn't science about looking for evidence? By your reasoning, we should have dismissed the idea of Dark Matter, as at one time it was only a theory with no evidence.

As I have already pointed out, you have this compltely backwards. Dark matter was never a theory without evidence, it was evidence without a theory.

If was refering to the theory that we may one day become creators ourselves, and therefore it can't be ruled out that this may have already happened. It's not my theory, it's not even a new one. This is probably one of the most famous stories based on the theory.

OK. It's a bit of speculation with no evidence to support it. A nice idea, but nothing more.

Yes, but there was a time when it wasn't, I suspected you would ignore that part.

As I have already said, you have this exactly backwards. When there was no evidence, no one speculated about dark matter. Once there was evidence that something was going on, dark matter was thought up as an explanation.

Hows that any different from a theory about a creator?

There is no evidence for a creator. Making observations and coming up with theories to explain them is how science works. Making up stories about invisible sky fairies and then trying to find something for it to explain is not.

Again, there was a time when there was no evidence for Dark Matter. You don't have any evidence about how the universe began, and yet you've already made up your mind. We can create things, you've yet to explain why it's not possible that something created the universe we live in.

You really like your dark matter, don't you? Why don't you try doing just a little bit of research before you make even more of an idiot of yourself? Again, no-one has said that anything is not possible. Stop arguing with your own imagination and try actually addressing what we are saying.

In your opinion. Most people don't find it hard to understand the mindset that God may or may not exist.

No, not just my opinion. A defition has to, you know, define something. Saying "God is something that either exists or doesn't" is not a definition. No-one has a problem with the idea that god might or might not exist, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the a definition of god.

Of course, and you don't do anything of the sort do you? Sorry I must have mistook, "And we might all be eaten by sharks with frickin' laser beams attatched to their heads. Just because you can write something doesn't mean it is actually a useful statement." as a childish and pointless statement. I didn't realise it was your attempt at a valuable insite.

Saying we might all be eaten by sharks with frickin' laser beams attatched to their heads is exactly as useful and meaningful as saying god might exist. That is what I was trying to demonstrate. Unfortunately you still can't seem to understand the point that simply saying something does not make it worth considering as a serious possibility. Yes, god might exist. Now what? Why should I actually consider this any more likely that being eaten by sharks with laser beams? What have you got that can distinguish your speculation about god from any other baseless speculation?

The fact that many of the greatest scientific minds in the world aren't prepared to rule out God, and yet you are, must mean you have some knowledge that they lack. I'd really like to hear it.

Please stop lying about my posts and actually respond to what I have said. Dishonest statements and insults are not a good way to get respect. If you want us to take you seriously, try taking us seriously. Dr B has already given up on you, do you want everyone else to ignore you as well?