Prove God Exists - Act Three

[FredLC]

Einstein spoke at length about how ideas came to him. To say he "Dreamt" relativity is not a bad nutshell capsulation.

Afraid it’s not a capsulation. Saying Einstein have theorized it, that would be a capsulation, because that would involve not only the vague ponderations he engaged, but also the skepticism, evaluation and logical development and scientific starting points that were no minor issue on his works.

Defining this “dreamy” is rather poetic, but not as much as it is misleading.

Bird's point about disagreeing on methodology should be taken quite seriously. There is not any agreement, really, in this thread as to what constitutes knowledge, observation or reality. You cannot determine what is real, if you cannot define "real."

At this point, I have to repeat the same question I made to BJ; do you consider any kind of claimed knowledge to be in pair with all others? Don’t you have any criteria as to separate a reliable one from a useless one? Answer that, and look at my following reply.

To illustrate, you need look no further than any mention of "religious experience" or any synonym. Fred will calmly discredit it as subjective, Curt will call it ridiculous using strong terms, Perfection will say that it contradicts the accepted norm, and so on. In the end, none really pick up the thread and deal with it as a genuine observation. When someone like Fearless claims that it is a leap of faith to deny God, this is of what he speaks.

Here lies the great injustice of your post. You act as if my dismissal of “religious experiences” was arbitrary, nothing more than a political affirmation of my likings.

I beg to differ.

See, I envision quite clearly the difference between inductive logic and deductive logic; The second is that derived from external experience; the first, is that derived from internal experience. The issue here is that whatever comes from internal realms are vague and helplessly influenced by your own preset of ideas. So, subjective experiences are not to be trusted not only “because I don’t like them”, but because they don’t offer control tools to separate correct assertions from incorrect assertions.

Religious claims, or “religious experiences” as you put it, are things of that sort, and end up being arbitrary ones. As all of them possesses as “common trait” the claimed knowledge of events or entities that are “beyond analysis”, they can pretty much claim whatever the hell they want – be it that God created the world in 7 days (Christian mythology); or that the universe will end in the Ragnarok, a battle between the God of Thunder and the Serpent of the World (Nordic mythology); or that there is an invisible conscientious force that has a solid but subtle rule on the universe (intelligent design)… and millions of examples more.

All of these claims have the same problems “per se”, as all experiences that lead to them are equally subjective; first of’em is that they are incompatible and mutually excelusive; second, is that they aren’t verifiable; third, they are imprecise.

These are the internal dismissive issues on “religious experiences”; there is one external one, also, that reinforces the point – the fact that, as the “feeling” of the deity of choice that fundaments your religion is no different than that of other man in other religions. Hence, the factor that makes you consider yours correct, but the other man’s incorrect, has no possible fundament, for no one can demonstrate a fundamental difference between the validity of the two incompatible claims.

See, in Immanuel Kant's doctrine, he evokes the “categorical principle”; it states that in the building of an ideal world, every action of every man should enunciate a principle of universal validity.

I can do that. My principle is that empirical experience, even considered all it’s limits, is the only category of investigation with any shred of reliability, being the only one trustworthy as a source of understanding of the fundaments of nature;

You can’t; for even when we surpass all the fallibilities of this method, that includes all those of the empiricism plus the three other I brought up here, still the same kind of “subjective experience” that for you is irrevocable evidence that you are correct, is not irrevocable evidence that the other man who professes a different religion is correct. You can’t, than attrib to your chosen inductive method of “subject experience” an universal appliance as it would destroy your certainty even more than would support it;

Hence, you lack method, falling to the trap of arbitrarity. And that is the reason of my dismissal of this sort of “experience” as a valid source of knowledge, that, as you can see, has a pretty good fundament behind it, being more than just me indulging my own likings.

So there is no agreement, because there is no agreement as to what constitutes evidence. Some one once said that if you got past the first 4 words in the Bible, the rest was easy.

In the Beginning, God... Genesis 1:1

We are not yet past the opening remark.

The problem is deeper, far deeper, and that you seen to miss. We are not “passed” the open remark? We are not eve there yet. Our discussion has first to solve the problem God, in a way that confirms it (good luck at that), before it even becomes a matter of concern what he did or didn’t do at the beginning.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

Not a problem Fred.

I have made time; expect a reply in the next minutes.

 

[CurtSibling]

Time for an observation.

I urge religious folk to look at the reasons they yearn for a god.

There is no evidence, no solid ground whatsoever.

Show me something on earth that is a product of this deity?
There is nothing to suggest its influence - Save for many religions devoted to...what?

The very nature of the idea is a fantasy, created by us.
Borne from man's yearning to imprint himself upon a great 'father'.

I see more and more that god is a product of the mind - A delusion?

People could argue faith -But does that make a delusion legitimate?

Osama has faith in his ideas, a madman has faith that he is Napoleon.

We must discount faith, it is a very human flaw - It is denial under the guise of honesty.

We must accept the fact that lurks deep in us all, that we are alone.

We must fling aside mental dementia and accept the world is ours alone.

Hiding behind the cryptic words of primitive men will not
avoid the logical conclusion is starting to dawn upon mankind.

The fact that there are no gods.

 

[Mrogreturns]

Countdown to Spain: 5 days



This is not a solitary process, but a multi person endeavor. (Well, I guess you could do it on your own) It could be focused and goal oriented or open ended, intellectual or Truth seeking. So much would depend upon the participants. Rules of evidence could be loose at the start and slowly squeezed to tighten the process as it moves along. Personally, I see the process as one which has little likelihood of actually changing beliefs, but a good prospect of enhancing the process of discovery and changing the way people look at problems and prejudices. And it might even be fun!

One approach is to start with a foreign set of assumptions and then try to build our universe on those assumptions. Can you make the world work like we know it in that frame? Would it change how theists and atheists view things? You don't know until you try.

Well, whenever you get aound to it, you will eventually be faced with taking the step of preferring some claims over others, and your methods for doing that are of critical importance. FredLC has been dealing with that point in his last few posts and doing so with a good deal more elloquence than I can, so I'll opt out after this post leave you both to it and continue to read with interest.

 

[FredLC]

Again I agree. The human desire to find unity tho’ must have some origin or function. I would attribute it to some feature of our genetic heritage. And, if at some point, science reduces the universe to a “uniformity” of some sort, then such a trait might be explained.

I’ll cease here, as this path is irrelevant for our debate.

Of course not. And I don’t believe in pixies, astrology or crop circles either. I suspect that my rules of evidence include all of yours, but I probably allow items in that you do not. I do believe that there is mystery to the universe and there are things that reason cannot understand. That is not a carte blanche for crackpot ideas, but it leaves the door open for…poetry. Don’t be mislead by my undisciplined language here, by poetry I mean a host of non empirical experiences.

Than please, explain me the tool that you used to define pixies, astrology and crop circles as less reliable than other sorts of subjective experiences or wishful pseudoscience that you may possibly believe. What is the factor in the carte that prevents it from being blanche.

I was responding to the very words you used, not slamming you for having a closed mind. You use “wild, unlikely and guess” to characterize the other side, and “solid, well-put and idea” to characterize your position. I concur that you are open minded in your posts here, but please explain to me how those two sets of words offer an unbiased viewpoint. Each of them is heavily value laden.

This would only be true if I haven’t exposed the method I have chosen to separate one from the other.

You said poetry is my field of choice. I merely stated I had a knack for copy and poetry. But, I am not offended.

Good, because it was never meant as an offense.

I will think about this one.

That’s a good start.

I knew you would. It was written by a scientist. With thought, you should be able to reason out some meaning. If you then still disagree, we can discuss it further. If anyone else cares to offer any explanation please do so!!

Well, as I do not bow to scientists, I don’t have to agree with everything they say. Nor I think that any sentence offered to me has some deep meaning inside it’s obscure wording. If I may quote Isaac Asimov from his short tale “The Final Answer”: “this look a lot like mystical philosophy from the orient; it sounds profound exactly because it means nothing”.

Maybe they don’t know how. This does not excuse most of those who you are referencing, but maybe, just maybe, for some, language and logic are insufficient to express their experiences. So they stumble. The fault may be in language and logic and not in the experience.

No, this is misleading, and that is a condescending judgment from my part.

First of all, it’s not like the religious postulates are shy claims of people that has troubles expressing their ideas. Quite the contrary, the claim a superior knowledge and understanding, a grasp on the fundamentals of reality that reaches what logic and empiricism can’t, that “sees beyond the poor limits of rational analysis” and find greater universal truths.

Well, such is a very bold statement. To look down at the way science approaches the problem of the supposed transcendental they really must have a better way to do it – and they most certainly think they do. Only they never, ever, succeed when it’s about validating that method. They don’t have a structure to show, a line to follow, a path that leads to their conclusions. The arbitrarity of the claims ends up hopeless exposed to the critical reader.

Also, let me say that even if they have had some “transcendental experience” – a assumption that I make for argumentative purposes – and they lack the capacity to translate that into enunciates that prescribe these coefficients of knowledge and makes them available to the reader, than such knowledge is lost, and everything organized religion is about is but a strawman of it’s own bases – what alone would be good reason for all the criticism and dismissal it receives, for it would only be possible in individual level, and necessarily impervious to exchange and communication.

Fact is – and it gets down to this – “personal experiences” aren’t reliable as they are not subject of counter-test as mean to attest their validity – for all the given reasons – and any system that bases itself solely on them, specially claiming to have a superior knowledge, is just a farse, that claims to be outside the realm of analysis due to knowing that being analyzed would mean it’s end.

You introduced god into this series of posts. You brought him in to bolster your position. You claim the importance of the purity of terms and staying away from vague and poetic language. Your unwillingness to define key terms you introduce shows disrespect for your own position. No one is asking you to define everything that doesn’t exist, just the single item you chose to include. You don’t have to believe in the god you define, you just have to define the god you used in your own argument.

No, I didn’t. I was just responding to a parabole from OJH.

And you’ll notice the relevant fact that my urge for terminological purity does not contradict with my refusal to define God; for what I challenge is not the definition of God, nor particularly God, that has incidental importance in this thread but is just one more arbitrary claim to my system.

What I challenge is the idea that factual knowledge can be obtained through inductive logic; this I do with a general scope, and I challenge God (in whatever concept it may come) through the same criteria that I challenge, say, astrology, or crop circles.

I repeat, I don’t have to define everything I don’t think exists to apply this principle. I don’t have to define the medusa; I don’t have to define Dragons; I don’t have to define Santa Claus. Doing so would be an exercise of futility, for I would right forever and still there would be a never-ending number of inexistent things to conceptualize. The only component I need to fit these in my reasoning is the subjective/inductive nature of the entities – and this is not being challenged in this thread.

I’m sorry, but my claim is negative (there is nothing out there, until proof). Those who makes constitutive claims (regardless proof, it’s there) are the ones who carry the burden of prove and of definition; for it’s them that have to outline what is it that they claim to exist.

As I said, it’s a common religionist trick to make God as vague as possible; so they can choose arbitrarily the elements that he possesses or not casuistically, according to the convenience of each discussion.

I wish they offered me a specific God to dissected. But they never offer anything but ‘God is good and mysterious”.

Your challenge to all CIVFanatics is interesting, but a poor distraction to the situation at hand. This crowd is far to smart to fall for that. It would though make a great thread. If you are brave enough to take this step, I promise not to make any comments about it or even return to that small discussion without your expressed permission.

Knowing better than outlining God is indeed something that religionists have long ago learning not to do, as a precise God is one rather fragile concept. But what you call being smart, I call being a smartass, for it has more to do with trickery than with wisdom, even if it was cross-dressed like that. Look at how I make sure to be as precise as possible in any concept I uphold; that’s why I am confident on the validity of the paths and conclusions that constitute my grand vision, and, as an honest debater, I never deflect my central themes.

Nonetheless, I don’t consider this worthy opening a thread – for it will turn into one exactly like this. Be my guest to do it, though, for I can’t promise that I’ll control my urge to debunk what I consider wrong.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

Well, whenever you get aound to it, you will eventually be faced with taking the step of preferring some claims over others, and your methods for doing that are of critical importance. FredLC has been dealing with that point in his last few posts and doing so with a good deal more elloquence than I can, so I'll opt out after this post leave you both to it and continue to read with interest.

I'll try to live up to your trust.

Regards .

 

[Birdjaguar]

Birdjaguar; I was responding to the very words you used, not slamming you for having a closed mind. You use “wild, unlikely and guess” to characterize the other side, and “solid, well-put and idea” to characterize your position. I concur that you are open minded in your posts here, but please explain to me how those two sets of words offer an unbiased viewpoint. Each of them is heavily value laden.

FredLC: This would only be true if I haven’t exposed the method I have chosen to separate one from the other.

You’ve only explained the reason for your bias, not eliminated the prejudice. You’ve said that the religionists beliefs cannot be reconciled with your methodology, so you can call them “wild, unlikely guesses” by your rules. If you weren’t biased, you would be arguing differently. And by using the word “prejudice” here, I am implying a more negative tone to this post than if I used only “biased” or “slanted”. It emphasizes my “prejudices” against the limitations I see in your methodology.

Suppose my cultural group decides, by some set of rules we all accept, that blue eyed people are stupid. So we treat all blue eyed people as if they are stupid. “Hey Stupid!” Explaining my “rules” for deciding blue eyed people are stupid does not remove the prejudice no matter how correct or incorrect I am This all very minor to the discussion, but like all good conversations, the tangents can be fun and interesting.

 

[LesCanadiens]

You guys aren't even discussing God's existance anymore, you're just calling each other biased and telling each other why.

I think it's time we (or a mod) put this thread to rest.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You guys aren't even discussing God's existance anymore, you're just calling each other biased and telling each other why.

I think it's time we (or a mod) put this thread to rest.

No, as you will see below, we are discussing the nature of proof, which has everything to do with "proving god exists". If you don't think that bias and prejudice are integral to what has been posted here, then you need to re read it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is a collection of recent posts by FredLC. I have edited them for brevity and not to change their flavor. I have listed many to create a “preponderance of evidence”. I think they characterize the root of our differences.

Fred, you limit the source of all knowledge to empiricism and deductive science. If it cannot be verified by those rules it is not real or true. Your system is a closed one that only allows explained data. There is no mystery and no unknowns.

Don’t you have any criteria as to separate a reliable one from a useless one?

Inductive logic is that derived from internal experience. The issue here is that whatever comes from internal realms are vague and helplessly influenced by your own preset of ideas. Subjective experiences are not to be trusted, not only “because I don’t like them”, but because they don’t offer control tools to separate correct assertions from incorrect assertions.

Deductive logic … is that derived from external experience;

Religious claims, or “religious experiences” are “beyond analysis”, they can pretty much claim whatever the hell they want. All of these … are equally subjective; they are incompatible and mutually exclusive; they aren’t verifiable; they are imprecise.

no one can demonstrate…

My principle is that empirical experience is the only category of investigation with any shred of reliability, being the only one trustworthy as a source of understanding of the fundaments of nature;

Hence, you lack method, falling to the trap of arbitrarity. And that is the reason of my dismissal of this sort of “experience” as a valid source of knowledge, that, as you can see, has a pretty good fundament behind it, being more than just me indulging my own liking.

Then please, explain me the tool that you used ….

they [religionists] claim a superior knowledge and understanding, a grasp on the fundamentals of reality that reaches what logic and empiricism can’t, that “sees beyond the poor limits of rational analysis” and find greater universal truths.

[Religionists] don’t have a structure to show, a line to follow, a path that leads to their conclusions. The arbitrarity of the claims ends up hopeless exposed to the critical reader.

They lack the capacity to translate that into enunciates [words] that prescribe these coefficients of knowledge and makes them available to the reader, for it would only be possible [at the] individual level, and necessarily impervious to exchange and communication.

Fact is – and it gets down to this – “personal experiences” aren’t reliable as they are not subject of counter-test as mean to attest their validity – for all the given reasons – and any system that bases itself solely on them, specially claiming to have a superior knowledge, is just a farce, that claims to be outside the realm of analysis due to knowing that being analyzed would mean it’s end.

What I challenge is the idea that factual knowledge can be obtained through inductive logic; this I do with a general scope, and I challenge God (in whatever concept it may come) through the same criteria that I challenge, say, astrology, or crop circles.

there is nothing out there, until proof

I wish they offered me a specific God to [be] dissected.

Look at how I make sure to be as precise as possible in any concept I uphold; that’s why I am confident on the validity of the paths and conclusions that constitute my grand vision, and, as an honest debater, I never deflect my central themes.

Now, I am not claiming that all, most, or even a few of the unverifiable personal experiences put forth as true, are true. But, I will claim that you don’t know if they are true or not. Based on the evidence they present (or don’t present), you just choose not to believe that they are. You are consistent. To a fault in my view. You invalidate a huge piece of the human experience. You trivialize what you cannot understand. You dismiss out of hand all experiences that can’t be quantified to your satisfaction. I take a different position.

I believe that there is truth and knowledge in things we cannot explain. Non quantifiable experiences can be Real and teach important "lessons". I am not saying everything we cannot explain is true. I am skeptical and careful in my subjectivity. While we do agree on the importance of deductive reasoning and the role it plays in our understanding of the world, our fundamental assumptions about what knowledge is are very different. I believe that there is wonder in mathematics, that mathematics cannot explain.

 

[Blasphemous]

You’ve only explained the reason for your bias, not eliminated the prejudice. You’ve said that the religionists beliefs cannot be reconciled with your methodology, so you can call them “wild, unlikely guesses” by your rules. If you weren’t biased, you would be arguing differently. And by using the word “prejudice” here, I am implying a more negative tone to this post than if I used only “biased” or “slanted”. It emphasizes my “prejudices” against the limitations I see in your methodology.

Suppose my cultural group decides, by some set of rules we all accept, that blue eyed people are stupid. So we treat all blue eyed people as if they are stupid. “Hey Stupid!” Explaining my “rules” for deciding blue eyed people are stupid does not remove the prejudice no matter how correct or incorrect I am This all very minor to the discussion, but like all good conversations, the tangents can be fun and interesting.

This is stupid. Not all prejudices are inherently bad. I'm strongly prejudiced against getting stabbed in the eye with a pencil. My explaination is irrelevant, so I won't bother to mention the fact that it would hurt like hell and that I would be likely to die if it happened, and absolutely certainly I would lose my eye.
No, this is prejudice so it's wrong. >_>

Sometimes in life, something is simply wrong.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is stupid. Not all prejudices are inherently bad. Sometimes in life, something is simply wrong.

I agree completely. The discussion was about language and using words that conveyed a bias; The point was that explaining a bias does not remove it. The choice of words can spin the bias and imply a greater or lesser sense of being bad. It was an offshoot of the discussion and I did not intend it to offend Fred or anyone else.

Now I believe that FredLC might say that we cannot "know" something is wrong unless we can empirically prove it is wrong. Hey Fred, what are acceptable deductive measures/standards etc. for proving an action is right or wrong? Do we go with cultural norms and laws? Pain an suffering? How do we "know" right from wrong?

 

[FredLC]

You guys aren't even discussing God's existance anymore, you're just calling each other biased and telling each other why.

I think it's time we (or a mod) put this thread to rest.

LesC, not discussing "God" anymore is the saving grace of this thread. As pointed out, we shifted to a more fundamental discussion; what is the true scope of proof? This is incedental but crucial, and in fact, far more promissing than the usual ping pong inb terms of reaching a consensual ground, or at least the exat point of disagreement.

And while I think BJ's choice of words is hopelessly innacurate, they don't seen to carry any animosity, as neither do mine, making your objection here quite off from what really is going on.

Regards .

 

[Birdjaguar]

they don't seen to carry any animosity, as neither do mine,

Absolutely none.

 

[FredLC]

Well, my reply to the rest will have to wait - I am out of home until mondey night, and typing a long reply from here (my parents), well, only if and when I come across some free hours, what is uncertain.

Regards ,

 

[CurtSibling]

You guys aren't even discussing God's existance anymore, you're just calling each other biased and telling each other why.

I think it's time we (or a mod) put this thread to rest.

I disagree.
Some of the discussions here are the best I have seen.

No-one has your hamster hostage, forcing you to read the thread!

 

[Phydeaux]

I'm not gonna even bother with the rest.
Just this one sentance.
Perhaps nothing can be "truly" proven. But science can prove things in a way that consists of proof according to logical criteria. God does not fall into this area, but gravity, evolution, quantom mechanics, and many many other things do.
So science can prove logical, reasonable theories. It cannot prove illogical, unreasonable imaginations.

Science is not 100%, and it is very likly that it could have flaws. Which I guess is what you said.

 

[Phydeaux]

That's proof enough for me. Now if you can look at the evidence and tell how it leads to the conclusion that there is a god then I'll be satisfied. Of course all illogical or presumptive ones will not be considered valid answers.

Well the fact that we are here is a very big evidence. Would you not at least admit that from what we know today it seams that there would have to be a creator?

 

[Blasphemous]

Science is not 100%, and it is very likly that it could have flaws. Which I guess is what you said.

No. What I said is that within science things can be proven. I don't consider anything proven if it falls when logic is applied to it. I think for something to be considered proven you need a method and that method is the one, the only, Scientific Method. If you have some alternative method that proves god is real, please do tell us about it!

 

[anarres]

Well the fact that we are here is a very big evidence. Would you not at least admit that from what we know today it seams that there would have to be a creator?

What evidence is this? The whole point of this thread is to show proof there is a creator, and I have seen none (and I've read the whole thread too).