Can science prove God doesnt exist?

[still_one]

Scientists now know that the universe contains at least two trillion galaxies. It’s a mind-scrunchingly big place, very different to the conception of the universe we had when the world’s major religions were founded. So do the astronomical discoveries of the last few centuries have implications for religion?

Over the last few decades, a new way of arguing for atheism has emerged. Philosophers of religion such as Michael Martin and Nicholas Everitt have asked us to consider the kind of universe we would expect the Christian God to have created, and compare it with the universe we actually live in. They argue there is a mismatch. Everitt focuses on how big the universe is, and argues this gives us reason to believe the God of classical Christianity doesn’t exist.

To explain why, we need a little theology. Traditionally, the Christian God is held to be deeply concerned with human beings. Genesis (1:27) states: “God created mankind in his own image.” Psalms (8:1-5) says: “O Lord … What is man that You take thought of him…Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!” And, of course, John (3:16) explains God gave humans his son out of love for us.
These texts show that God is human-oriented: human beings are like God, and he values us highly. Although we’re focusing on Christianity, these claims can be found in other monotheistic religions, too.

Not a human-oriented universe
If God is human-oriented, wouldn’t you expect him to create a universe in which humans feature prominently? You’d expect humans to occupy most of the universe, existing across time. Yet that isn’t the kind of universe we live in. Humans are very small, and space, as Douglas Adams once put it, “is big, really really big."

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/can-science-prove-god-doesnt-exist/

My personal view is the size of this "non human-oriented universe", neither proves or disproves anything. In fact the theist might argue that it is the "uniqueness" of the human condition that proves the existence of God.

I would argue that approach also neither proves or disproves the existence of God.

[Roland99]

1. Proving something doesnt exist is quite difficult

But determining the odds of something not existing is more likely.

imho, the odds of a god existing are approaching infinity

[still_one]

6. Then I would pose the question, what were the odds that a human prescence would come into being

13.772 billion years ago?

[DetlefK]

16. You mean whether life sprang from chaos? That's an easy calculation:

Let's take the Gay-Lussac experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_expansion

You have a full balloon and an empty balloon. Connected. If you open the valve, the gas spreads out evenly between both. Yet there is a certain probability that all the gas will spontaneously amass into one balloon only, leaving the other one empty.

That probability is zero for the theoretical, perfect systems we look at in ordinary thermodynamics, because they consist of an infinite amount of particles. However, if you look at a realistic system with a finite amount of particles, that probability is always larger than zero.

-> Translation: In a system with a finite number of particles, the probability for chaos to spontaneously turn into order is always larger than zero.
-> If you wait long enough (and your system is sufficiently complex) life (or some other ordered state of matter) becomes inevitable.





That's where the Intelligent Design-guys always get it wrong. They use systems with an infinite amount of particles. And of course that changes the whole math and makes the effect mentioned above impossible. As soon as you move to finite systems, their argument collapses.

[docgee]

23. In fact it's easily larger than zero.

Patterns emerge from random chaos all the time. Chaos doesn't increase everywhere at once since the entropy is generally conserved over the entire system and can fluctuate at points.

[still_one]

34. That is what Le Chateilier principle states with a system coming to a state of equilibrim

and yes, we are talking about finite systems.

The question of whether what is the universe expanding into, implies that it isn't expanding into anything, assuming that the definition of the Universe is that it contains everything, and that would mean some that was "outside the universe", would all so be part of the universe.

I digress, so back to your point, could reasonably assume there is a high probability that life exists beyond earth somewhere else in the universe, and that it hasn't been perceived yet is because of the enormity of the universe, and our primitive exploration vehicles have barely gone out of our solar system?

[DetlefK]

42. re

1. The universe isn't expanding into a larger volume just like a balloon isn't expanding into some larger area. The universe has neither "edge" nor "center".

2. Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

[Lordquinton]

25. It's a small number

but the odds that it did happen are 100%

[Cuthbert Allgood]

41. 100% chance of humans coming into being on this planet.

That was easy.

[Voltaire2]

47. Deal out a set of bridge hands.

Pick up one of the 4 hands. What are the odds that this arrangement of cards occurred?

1:158753389900

Therefore god exists.

[RKP5637]

2. The universe is so vast, humans are insignificant. Humans have way over inflated egos IMO. n/t

[shanny]

32. "So if it is just us...it feels like an awful waste of space."

[RKP5637]

37. It's all relative, humans lack the capability to comprehend the universe. n/t

[vlyons]

3. This whole debate bores me

I'm a Buddhist, which is not a religion, but a non-theistic practice. I am much more concerned with eliminating the cause of suffering.

[still_one]

9. I don't know, is Buddism a religion or a philosophy, or both?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-liusuwan/is-buddhism-a-philosophy-_b_10176992.html

[vlyons]

46. Buddhism is NOT a religion. It is a practice.

While some forms of Buddhism may seem to you to have the trappings of religion, that doesn't make it so. One could say that Buddhism includes a certain philosophy about the causes, conditions, and cessation of suffering, and the path to eliminate suffering. But when someone confuses the "trappings" with the actual practice, that is called "spiritual materialism."

The main practice of Buddhism is meditation practice and post-meditation practice, which is to "do no harm." What religion calls "god," we call "mind." Or "indestructible wakefulness." Most forms of Buddhism today are in the Mahayana tradition of practicing compassion and wisdom, which is a full-time job. However, if someone wants to adhere to a belief in a god that exists outside space-time and the laws of physics, they are certainly free to do so.

We Buddhists are not waiting around for some savior to pop up and save us from suffering. It is each person's responsibility to work this out for themselves. The Buddha's last words before dieing were that "everyone must work out his own salvation, with diligence." Fortunately we have numerous road maps left to us by the Buddha and by many wise teachers over the last 2300 or so years.

[marylandblue]

53. None of those things are needed for a religion

Saviors are not needed, gods are not needed. What is needed is ceremony, symbolism rites of passage, spiritual practice and so on. This may be spiritual materialism by Buddhist definition, that's okay, the two are not incompatible.

[vlyons]

58. Perhaps you don't know what is meant by spiritual materialism

Chogyam Trungpa was the first Tibetan Buddhist teacher to come to the West after the Chinese invasion. Based on what he experienced in England and the U.S., he did a series of teachings and wrote a book about spiritual materialism. Basically spiritual materialism is about "deceiving ourselves into thinking we are developing spiritually, when instead we are strengthening our egocentricity through spiritual techniques." Using the "trappings" of religion and religious ceremonies to inflate the ego is spiritual materialism. So in that sense, Buddhism and spiritual materialism are totally incompatible. This is not the same as using religious ceremonies to practice devotion, commitment, purification of confused ideas, atonement for mistakes and broken vows, etc.

When I first read Trungpa's book, "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism," it upset me greatly, as I realized that I had been making that mistake of using religious trappings to inflate my ego.

If you're interested in learning more, you can google "spiritual materialism" to find a wealth of info.

[marylandblue]

60. I think you don't understand what I mean by religion

Last edited Sun Nov 5, 2017, 03:10 PM - Edit history (2)

It has nothing to do with the theology or philosophy or actual practices of the religion. I don't care if Buddhism considers that spiritual materialism or not any more than Buddhists should care if someone else defines it as a religion. It's because those trappings exist, it is a religion. That the trappings are not the point is important to Buddhists, but not to my definition.

[trotsky]

64. I get the point you're making.

And I think you're right.

[Voltaire2]

91. "While some forms of Buddhism "... yet another no true Scotsman argument.

I agree that there are forms of Buddhism that are really not a religion but a philosophy and practice. The problem is that there are other forms of Buddhism that are clearly a religion. You don't get to cast all those other forms out and declare them "not Buddhism". Also before leaping on the Buddhist Peace Train you have to consider the role of Buddhist practices in Japanese militarism, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. Mindfulness and compassion apparently can end up in very strange places.

[vlyons]

94. Alas there have been times when Buddhism fell into a degenerate cult

Just like now, when Christianity has fallen into the degenerate teachings of the prosperity , hell fire and brimstone fundamentalists, or Islam has fallen into the clutches of Jihadists. That doesn't invalidate the original teachings of Buddha or Jesus. Just because non-Buddhists perceive Buddhism as a religion, does not make it so. The whole point of Buddhist practice is to recognize the causes and conditions of suffering, and then to do something to eradicate them. The main cause of suffering is our subjective mind that does not perceive reality in the way it really exists. And so we begin to meditate and really look out how our minds work. And then we extend meditation practice into the post-meditation practice of mindfulness as we just live our everyday life, which in and of itself is very sacred.

Even Buddhists can make minor and major root downfalls of the precepts of "do no harm" and compassion. But that doesn't invalidate the precept of "do no harm." Your phrase, "Buddhist Peace Train" is condescending and disrespectful.

[Act_of_Reparation]

103. I'm not entirely clear on how you're defining "religion".

Buddhism is a cultural construction of prescribed practices, morality, texts, sacred sites, and sects that relate to human transcendence. Sounds like religion to me.

[vlyons]

104. I use my dictionary's 1st definition

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

Perhaps you are more inclined towards a 2nd definition: "a particular system of faith and worship"

We don't "worship" anything, although to non-Buddhists the way to show respect may appear to look like worship. e.g. doing prostrations, making offerings are things that a non-Buddhist might label as worship. But the concept of worship is purely in the mind of the person labeling those actions as such, not necessarily in the doing of them.

There are a great many subtleties in Buddhism, one of which is for the mind to go beyond concepts and assumptions. The heart of Buddhism is the practice of meditation and experience of the true nature of your mind. We call it "enlightenment." I'm not going to say that you are wrong to think of Buddhism as a religion, because that is your experience as a non-Buddhist. I'm just telling you that as a 30 year practicing Buddhist, my experience is that it is not a religion, but a practice of meditation and mindfulness. And you don't have to be a Buddhist to practice meditation and mindfulness. You can be a catholic, or a 7th Day Adventist, a Jew, or an atheist and sit down, breathe , and look at your mind, concepts, emotions and try to discover what and where the mind is.

A Buddhist is someone, who has taken refuge in the Buddha, dharma, and sangha.

[Pope George Ringo II]

105. For what it's worth

I understand why people might think of it as a religion, but I think the defining factor is whether or not its adherents consider it one. That seems to be a "no."

[marylandblue]

108. I think Act of Reparation's definition makes more sense

The dictionary definition seems very Western oriented, as if they can't conceive of religion without gods or worship. I don't know if what the adherents think is an accurate
guide. I've heard Christians Jews and muslims say they are not following a religion but "a way of life," or "a relationship." Seems like religion is like "cult," something only other people do.

[Pope George Ringo II]

109. I don't have a problem with the definition part.

But if a group says, "We're not a religion," I think it's only fair to take them at their word.

[vlyons]

110. Thank-you

I can only recommend that you read Buddhist literature. There is a lot that has been translated into English. Then sit down and contemplate for yourself what it means. If you have further questions, ask an authentic Buddhist teacher for clarification.

The Berzin Archives hosted by Harvard (https://www.google.com/search?q=berzine+archives&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 ) is free.

[marylandblue]

111. I've read a lot of Buddhist literature particularly Zen

and I've meditated in the past and proably will start again in the future. Also studied some history of the Far East and India which included coverage of Buddhidm from a historical perspective.

I don't think Western categories like "religion" and "philosophy" describe any of the eastern religions very well. Nonetheless those are the closest analogues we have in English, so I am comfortable calling Buddhism religion even while realizing that is not Buddhism is not really like anything that exists in the West.

[vlyons]

112. I'm mostly in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition

Not everyone's cup of tea, I know. The Dalai Lama's book, "How to Practice" is one that I like to recommend. He is a wonderful writer, very clear and easy to read. Plus he knows more than a thing or two about meditation. Best of all, good used copies of that book are usually available for .02 or .03 cents on Amazon. Such a deal!

[marylandblue]

152. Thanks, maybe I will read that

I like Pema Chodron's work. Especially helpful in the last year, she talks a lot about dealing with disappointment and fear like I've felt since the election.

[Act_of_Reparation]

107. I prefer a sociological or anthropological definition over ethnocentric colloquialisms.

Religion is a cultural construct of shared beliefs, practices, symbols, and/or texts relative to transcendence or relationship with a supernatural entity or entities. Buddhism has shared beliefs. It has shared practices. It has shared symbols. It has shared texts. It deals with transcendence. It is not theistic -- insofar as belief in a god or gods is not necessary to be Buddhist -- but it does deal in supernatural concepts.

[Kleveland]

20. Here here!

A concept beyond many...

[MineralMan]

71. There there...

[marylandblue]

27. It has the trappings of religion

which makes it a religion in my book. But that is not a bad thing.

[trotsky]

4. We can't prove the non-existence of unicorns either.

Who cares?

It's on the people proposing its existence to prove it, and they can't.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

5. You can't prove a negative.

I happen to think that a God as envisioned by the monotheistic religions (one single, all-powerful, all-knowing, all sadistic entity) probably does not exist, but that's my belief. While a belief can be subject to questioning and scrutiny, it's less likely to be definitely proven to be true or not true.

[Girard442]

7. I don't see any evidence of a God(s) that take a personal interest in human beings.

If He/She/It/They do exist then go away and leave us alone.

Other than that, the question is unanswerable. How do you argue about the existence of something when you don't even know what it is?

[RKP5637]

39. Many seem to have to have something to grasp to in life, even if non-existent, for their survival

and justification of things they can't understand. As you say, "How do you argue about the existence of something when you don't even know what it is?" And so much often evolves into power, control, persecution, cults, politics and money ... throughout the ages.

[DetlefK]

8. That's not how science works.

The premise of science is not "it's true until you prove otherwise". It's "it's not true until you prove it".

The scientific method is a cycle: hypothesis -> experiment -> theory -> experiment -> ...
* If a hypothesis gets proven by an experiment, then it gets accepted as a full-fledged theory.
* If a hypothesis fails to be proven by an experiment, it gets discarded.
* If a theory gets (after its establishment) contradicted by an experiment, it gets discarded as well.
* Theories keep getting tested on a regular basis. Only those who pass each test, again and again, survive.

So, before science even had the obligation to discredit a "theory of God", we would first need to establish some kind of "theory of God" via some kind of proof that would elevate the "hypothesis of God" from fiction to confirmed truth.

[still_one]

12. It is much easier to prove something observable than non-observable

[DetlefK]

17. Well, Goedel tried his hand at a philosophical proof of God.

He assumed that life and the universe had certain properties and from that he proved that something like an "absolute good" must exist.
It was a famous proof because it was so difficult that nobody was able to make in a mathematically correct fashion until about 5 years ago.

The problem with his proof was that these properties he assumed for life and the universe were unrealistic. Gödel assumed for example that everything can be clearly divided into "good things" and "evil things" and that good only begets good and evil only begets evil. And it's obvious that that's not how the universe works.

[still_one]

26. Interesting. I am going to have to look Goedel up, thanks

[Jim__]

62. Here is Goedel's proof, essentially as he presented it.

Goedel being Gödel possibly the top logician of the 20th century. His proof - he used modal logic and: ▢ means necessarily, and ◇ means possibly. This "proof" was published post-humously - from wikipedia:

Ax. 1. {P( ? ) ∧ ▢ ? x (? (x) ? ? (x))} ? P( ? )
Ax. 2. P( ¬ ? ) ? ¬ P( ? )
Th. 1. P( ? ) ? ◇ ? x ( ? (x) )
Df. 1. G(x) ? ? ? (P ( ? ) ? ? (x) )
Ax. 3. P(G)
Th. 2. ◇ ? x G(x)
Df. 2. ? ess x ? ? (x) ∧ ? ? ( ? (x) ? ▢ ? x ( ? (x) ? ? (x) ) )
Ax. 4. P( ? ) ? ▢ P( ? )
Th. 3. G(x) ? G ess x
Df. 3. E(x) ? ? ? ( ? ess x ? ▢ ? x ? (x) )
Ax. 5. P(E)
Th. 4. ▢ ? x G(x)

Here is his argument as it is presented in SEP:

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive

Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B

Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

[still_one]

65. +++++++++++++++ this will take me some time to get through

[marylandblue]

66. It's a version of the ontological argument

[Jim__]

92. I agree that it takes some time to get through.

I think it's worth the effort.

[FM123]

10. I wouldn't know the answer to that, but

Carl Sagan once said "absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"

[still_one]

13. I like that

[Mariana]

75. Exactly.

There may be such things as gods. There may also be such things as werewolves, the Loch Ness Monster, and vast underground facilities where alien-human hybrids are being bred.

[marylandblue]

82. That quote predates Sagan and he did not approve it

He was critiquing rhat phrase as an example a logical fallacy -argument from ignorance.


"Appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g. There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

[Moostache]

11. To those that "be-lie-ve", no explanation will shake them...

I don't care what people want to think in their own heads...be my guest...but in public and when setting societal norms and laws, religion is an outdated concept from the infancy of human society. It needs to go away entirely. All of it.

Waiting now for Pascal's wager...

[still_one]

14. Now you are talking faith, which I guess is what the belief in a god is all about anyway

[Kleveland]

22. I make a distinction between belief and faith....

Belief insinuates that you believe something that someone told you.

Lies or whatever.

To me, faith is more of a matter of being in tune with what is within oneself, and realizing that there is something bigger than oneself. It is to me self awareness, and being mindful of one's inner peace.

[marylandblue]

83. I would call that spirituality rather than faith

Faith makes extraordinary claims about the outer world for which evidence is limited or absent. Spirituality is more of an inner attitide as you describe it.

[Angry Dragon]

15. Perhaps a god exists only in one's mind

Does that prove a god exists??

[DetlefK]

18. Can you prove that God exists in your mind?

Can you prove that you believe in God? That it's not just fakery?

[Angry Dragon]

21. That is like saying that you love someone

Can you prove that??
Thoughts exist
Are you saying that the mind is fake??

[WhiteTara]

19. The universe is impersonal

There is no big white daddy sitting on a throne with both his hands held up like a traffic cop saying go to heaven go to hell.

There can't be a god who is both everything and simultaneously be outside looking in.

The Buddhists explain the universe and all phenomenon are caused by conditions of cause and effect. Endless eons of karma.

[docgee]

24. I can't disprove there is a stealth slimy green ghoul under my desk about chomp my nads.

But I dont worry about that either.

[still_one]

36. Turtles all the way down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

[Voltaire2]

50. Its jock itch. See a doctor.

[Lordquinton]

28. There are a few things that need to happen first

For starters we need a working definition of the god we're looking for, and how those conclusions were reached. So far no theist here has been willing to supply any of that. When we start reading descriptions out of the bible, it's met with accusations of twisting words or literalism.

[Lordquinton]

29. Thus I formulated an image based upon observations

[trotsky]

31. That's exactly right.

Well done.

[docgee]

43. Excellent. I would have come to the same exact conclusion.

[MineralMan]

72. LOL!

Nicely posted.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. Of course not. Proving a negative, unicorns, probabilities-- we've been through all of this, but...

in terms of our simple, three dimensional, human-oriented planet. We don't even have a decent definition of "god" to prove or disprove.

More to the point would be looking for an intelligence in the cosmos. Is the universe "alive" in some sense?

[Doodley]

33. Before we try to prove or disprove God, does anyone know WHAT God actually is?

What is it exactly that is being proved or disproved?

[still_one]

35. Good point. People's concept of God may mean different things. One person may view God as an actua

entity, and someone else may view God as nature or the universe

[Iggo]

38. There is no god until there is one.

Find me one. Show me one. Until then, there isn't one.

[marylandblue]

40. We can prove the events in Genesis did not happen

Therefore we can declare it a likely the God described there doesn't exist either.

Hindu mythology talks about there being many worlds and eons lasting billions of years, but their supreme beong doesn't really care abkut human beings, ir's all just the mechanical workings of karma. We can't prove that such a God doesn't exist, but there is no evidence for it either.

[guillaumeb]

44. An interesting article.

But in Genesis 1:27, it is not stated that God created man as the sole sentient species, nor does it state that this planet is the sole habitable planet.

As a theist, as a Christian, I would argue that the Creator may well have created numerous sentient species living on equally numerous habitable planets.

But humans, especially the Bronze Age humans who figure prominently in the Bible, would of course have been most concerned with their species, and this planet.

[trotsky]

45. ...

"As a theist, as a Christian, I would argue that the Creator may well have created numerous sentient species living on equally numerous habitable planets."

And what facts would you use to argue that position?

[guillaumeb]

52. I would argue based on my beliefs.

A theological argument.

[trotsky]

54. So no facts, then.

Got it.

[guillaumeb]

55. Do you understand the difference bewteen faith and science?

Do you understand that one is based on belief, and the other on what can be proven?

Do you understand that neither can disprove the other?

[trotsky]

56. Yes, I understand why people like you want to make sure they wall off their religious claims...

from being scrutinized and verified.

That's a big problem - one that enables and empowers religious bigots everywhere.

[guillaumeb]

67. A giant leap on your part.

But I understand that some people like to make that leap.

[Lordquinton]

73. What leap?

You made a very confusing statement, I don't see any leap.

[trotsky]

106. Then why haven't you defined your god yet?

Doesn't seem like much of a leap at all when you consider your utter inability (or unwillingness) to simply provide a definition for this "creator" of yours.

[guillaumeb]

116. I have already stated what I feel the Creator is.

Numerous times. The Creator is the entity which created existence. And having created, having provided the spark, allowed it to evolve.

[trotsky]

117. But none of that is a definition.

It's just a bunch of begging the question.

Why won't you provide a definition?

[guillaumeb]

119. It is a definition.

it might not be the definition you wish to see, but it is a definition.

[trotsky]

121. No, it's just not a definition that provides any sort of info pertaining to what your creator is.

You've only defined it based on what you claim it has done.

That's like asking me to define a car, and me saying "it gets me from my house to work."

Not a definition, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

I guess you can't define it.

[marylandblue]

124. guillameb seems to think all definitions are personal and arbitrary

So this would apparently apply to the definition of "definition." If we can't agree on common definitions, then we can't have a decent debate.

[trotsky]

125. "then we can't have a decent debate"

If there's one thing g has demonstrated to me, it is that he isn't actually looking for debate. He just wants people to stop criticizing religion.

[marylandblue]

126. You are probably right, but it sure seems he could offer a better defense

[guillaumeb]

128. There is a difference between a description of an object and a thinking entity.

A car can be defined, as can any object that we can observe and analyze.

[Act_of_Reparation]

143. Thinking entities can't be observed or analyzed?

Well shit. I better tell my doctor.

[trotsky]

145. Human beings are thinking entities.

We can define what a human being is.

You'll have try harder with your special pleading.

[marylandblue]

81. I believe that distinction is breaking down.

It was a compromise idea worked out in the 17th century, but ever since Darwin figured out how to get complexity from simplicity, faith has been on the run.

[Voltaire2]

49. So you reject evolution.

[guillaumeb]

51. Feel free to explain how you added 2+2 to equal 534.

Or not.

[Voltaire2]

57. "the Creator may well have created numerous sentient species"

eliminates evolution as the agency and replaces it with an entity you refuse to define.

[trotsky]

63. Busted. n/t

[guillaumeb]

68. No, it does not, unless you reserve to yourself

the right to define what others believe.

I have stated many times that, in my opinion, the Creator provided the spark (so to speak) and then allowed what evolved to evolve.

[Voltaire2]

76. What spark?

Evolution does not require any sparks. But that isn’t what you said. You said your still undefined deity created sentient creatures on lots of different planets. Now you are retreating to some deformed first cause deity.

[guillaumeb]

84. Interesting reframing, or misreading, on your part.

I actually wrote:

But in Genesis 1:27, it is not stated that God created man as the sole sentient species, nor does it state that this planet is the sole habitable planet.

As a theist, as a Christian, I would argue that the Creator may well have created numerous sentient species living on equally numerous habitable planets.

In contrast, you are claiming that I wrote:

You said your still undefined deity created sentient creatures on lots of different planets.

If you cannot see the difference between the 2 statements, others can.

[marylandblue]

85. You noted the misquote, but did not answer "what spark?"

[guillaumeb]

86. I am still waiting for your answers to my earlier questions.

And waiting for the poster to respond back with how the poster read my speculation as an affirmation.

So when those two things are done, feel free to remind me of this question of yours.

[marylandblue]

87. What questions of yours are you waiting for me to answer?

Although there are previous questions of mine you did not answer, you can choose not to answer. It's nice to always get a response, but I don't expect it, and it doesn't bother me if you don't.

[guillaumeb]

96. You keep adding to your list of claimed offenses,

but refuse to answer when you are asked if the "offenses" also apply to non-theists. Leading to the inescapable conclusion that 2 separate sets of standards apply.

[marylandblue]

98. I think you have me confused with someone else

I never drew up a list of offenses.

[Lordquinton]

88. Nope, you don't get to demand that anymore

You have way too many unanswered questions lingering about you to demand that from anyone.

Plus your bad faith arguments and scrubbing of the past.

So, how about that undefined good you have, still gathering the description?

[guillaumeb]

95. Sorry, due to your reframing,

you cannot demand anything.

[Lordquinton]

97. Lolololololololololo

Keep trying G-man, everything is well documented. Gaslighting is not something that is tolerated.

[Voltaire2]

90. fine you are still replacing (speculatively for other planets) evolution with a deity.

Now, what spark?

[guillaumeb]

93. No, I am NOT replacing evolution.

What is the Big Bang but a metaphoric spark?

[marylandblue]

99. Why does the Big Bang need God to cause it?

It could be and appears to be self-caused.

[guillaumeb]

114. I have stated that I believe that the Creator initiated the Big Bang.

Could it be spontaneous? I have no idea.

[Voltaire2]

100. So when you said this:

As a theist, as a Christian, I would argue that the Creator may well have created numerous sentient species living on equally numerous habitable planets.

You were talking about “the Big Bang”?

Or was it this:

have stated many times that, in my opinion, the Creator provided the spark (so to speak) and then allowed what evolved to evolve.

[guillaumeb]

115. #2.

And my first statement was the one that you misinterpreted as my denying of evolution.

So my belief is that the Creator initiated the spark, or ignited the Big Bang, and allowed what happened to evolve into what is.

[trotsky]

118. But your first statement IS a denial of evolution.

Creating a species is what evolution does. If you instead claim your magical creator does this, then you deny evolution.

[guillaumeb]

120. So my belief is that the Creator initiated the spark, or ignited the Big Bang, and allowed..... etc.

[trotsky]

122. So you are retracting the other claim?

Are you admitting your magical creator did not create anything directly?

[guillaumeb]

129. Nice try. Or not.

[trotsky]

146. So yes, you are.

Thanks.

[guillaumeb]

148. See #129

You are welcome.

[Lordquinton]

123. What does the big bang have to do with evolution?

This is two completely different topics, as is abiogenesis and evolution.

You claim you don't know if the big bang could have been spontaneous, yet claim something way more far fetched. Surely you can admit that it could have happened spontaneously?

[Voltaire2]

130. So I cannot reconcile that statement with your first statement.

Did this "sparking" of "the big bang" include an explicit intention for everything that happened since time 0?

[guillaumeb]

131. Reread what I wrote.

And find any reference to explicit intent in my statement. If you can find such a statement, or anything supporting your question, I will be quite surprised.

[Voltaire2]

133. So is that "no" your god did not intend the universe to be as it is?

[guillaumeb]

134. Are you abandoning your earlier line of questioning?

Are you reframing it in the absence of any evidence for your earlier contention?

[Voltaire2]

135. I am trying to understand what you meant.

You claimed that your god just "sparked" the universe into existence and then let it evolve. I am still trying to reconcile that with your earlier statement that your god created sentient beings here and also perhaps on other planets. What role does your god play in the universe post singularity?

[guillaumeb]

137. Again, youseem to have misread what I wrote.

I theorized about sentient life on other planets, but your question is apparently based on your remembrance of something that bears little resemblance to what I actually said.

I might write a more expansive post about my beliefs at some point.

[Voltaire2]

138. what you wrote:

"As a theist, as a Christian, I would argue that the Creator may well have created numerous sentient species living on equally numerous habitable planets. "

But clearly once again you have no intention of defending what you write here. When questioned you run away, change the subject, pretend you meant something else, or go start a new thread to avoid the whole mess.

[guillaumeb]

139. Read this: "may well have created"

and understand that this is not a declarative sentence.
That might clear up your confusion.

And it is difficult to defend a claim that I did not make when a questioner, you in this instance, insists that I did and proceeds to argue based on a mis-framing.

At one point, Trotsky insisted that I claimed to define Christianity for everyone and much later retracted that claim.

[Voltaire2]

140. this is what I meant by "run away".

[guillaumeb]

144. On your part?

I understand your inclination to do so.

[guillaumeb]

149. Oh I understand what you meant.

But you apparently still do not apparently understand my response.

In the interest of dialogue, what do you find confusing?

[marylandblue]

142. So put it together and does it go something like one of these three?

1)A God of unknown nature may have caused the Big Bang, which you don't know, but could have been spontaneous anyway, which led to the possibility that He may or may not have caused life on other worlds to evolve or otherwise be created while 13.7 billion years later humans who had no idea how this all happened came up with a bunch of myths which we may or may not take literally and in any given part may or may not accurately reflect the will of the Creator.

2)What you wrote about the spark is a stand alone statement to which you have nothing to add or substract and may or may not be related to anything you said in the past or might say in the future.

3) All your statements are stand alone statements that are clear on the face of them and any failure to understand them is the reader's misinterpretation.


Is one of these correct or close? If so, which one?

[Lordquinton]

147. Please note I pointed out you have defined other's beliefs

And I have mantained that, with evidence.

[trotsky]

150. It should be noted, I didn't retract that claim.

I apologized for making it, because it upset you to the point of making up blatantly false things about me.

You finally retracted your false claim about me, however.

Gotcha.

[guillaumeb]

151. You seem confused. eom

[trotsky]

153. Whatever you need to believe, g-man. n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

59. Boy that's clever.

Genesis doesn't describe God as having created any planets except Earth. Because it was written 2500 years ago by idiots who lived in tents.

[guillaumeb]

69. The Bible is an attempt to define the Creator, and to define the relationship

with that Creator. My view.

[trotsky]

61. BTW Genesis doesn't give us a recipe for fettuccine alfredo either.

Are you really arguing that it's OK to insert whatever you want because your bible doesn't *expressly* contradict it?

[marylandblue]

70. previously you dismissed these as bronze age myths eom

[guillaumeb]

74. I an not a literalist, but that is not what I am saying. eom

[marylandblue]

79. The text has any meaning you want it to have, therefore it is irrelevant.

[Voltaire2]

48. The improbability of gods argument goes back

at least as far as Lucretius. The ancients were quite aware that the universe was vast and that we were just a small speck in that vastness. Squaring that with standard theistic cosmologies and creation myths was absurd even then.

[wasupaloopa]

77. You can't prove a negative the OP is bogus

[HopeAgain]

78. Maybe God exists but human religion falls short

Of understanding what it is. I have always seen religion as human attempts to explain the unexplainable. If there is a God, maybe it is nothing like human conception.

The only thing I take literally in the Bible is the spiritual principles Jesus taught. Mostly when he talked about the Kingdom of Heaven, I believe he was talking about a spiritual state of the individual on earth. The rest I see as allegorical/mythological. There's evidence that much of the literalism in Christianity is a relatively recent phenomena, taken to the extreme by the modern evangelicals.

I do believe in the importance of human spirituality and I have experienced a change to my whole psyche from my faith that has allowed me to change myself in ways I couldn't otherwise. Humans are emotional beings and I believe spirituality is in our DNA to help merge emotions with rationality. Whether a God is truly involved doesn't matter to me because spirituality has saved my ass.

Some theorists (scientists) believe that at its essence the physical world is made up of simply information. Who knows what implications that Has on a physical world that might not really exist as we experience it.

[marylandblue]

89. This may be so

I think the problem with religion is that some confuse the emotional satisfaction they get from religion with factual information about the world and concerns about how other people behave. They have trouble seeing how their feelings could be valid yet have nothing to say about how the world was created for example.

[EvilAL]

80. It can't prove A god somewhere doesn't exist.

It can prove the god of the bible doesn't exist.
It pretty much has, since every testabke claim made by god in the bible has been proven to be false.
If the perfect god of the bible is proven to get everything wrong, it's good evidence for the non-existence of this particular being.

[elleng]

101. No, nor can science prove that 'god' does exist.

[OhZone]

102. Of course Eris exists

Check out all the chaos and discord.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. No, BUT science will eventually prove that a god is not necessary for the universe to exist, and no

evidence supporting the claim of a supernatural god is valid.

Which amounts to the same thing.

[malchickiwick]

127. Not Science, Logic: The notion of omnipotence is self-contradictory.

Can God create an immovable rock?
If so, God is not omnipotent, being unable to move the rock.
If not, God is not omnipotent, being unable to create such a rock.

(I prefer the Bart Simpson version: "Can God create a burrito that's too hot for Him to eat?&quot

There's also Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation is the best, which pretty much disproves the existence of God.

[Voltaire2]

132. why is a god required to be omnipotent?

I can't seem to get theists to pin down any god requirements. However it is clear that for example the Greek gods were full of faults and weaknesses and could be killed on occasion despite being immortal. As a bunch they were far from omni-anything.

But how about a dim-witted weak god located at one non-place in non-time that has only the singularity skill?

[malchickiwick]

136. Excellent point. And there is ample evidence that any creator of this universe is incompetent.

By definition.

But then there's still Occam's Razor.

[Voltaire2]

141. I agree with that. But as far as proof of "no god" - that remains difficult.

It is especially difficult when theists refuse to define what attributes their gods have.