Defining or interpreting god? (1 Viewer)

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
#41
But if you accept the second postulate (thus rejecting causality outside of time), you're rejecting this logic:

X started to exist <=> X has a cause

Why is this any better?
Again, you can't use the word "started", it's time dependent :D

This is exactly what I meant by "everything (timespace and matter) came out of nothing". See, you too are having problems with this notion.
Of course I am, I'm having problems with a lot of things. Like an infinite universe, like time having a beginning, like matter being located in a singularity.

But how are any of these problems resolved by inventing something yet more unfathomable??

It's even more general than deism, because what I'm talking about just states: God caused the existence of the universe. Whether this mechanism (god) causes anything else within the universe (theism, supernatural things happen), or doesn't (deism), we don't know and don't care. I have no better way than calling it 'theism in the most broad sense'.
So what is it in your definition of god that's missing in deism? I don't get that.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com
OP
Dinsdale
Jun 26, 2007
2,706
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #42
    Again, you can't use the word "started", it's time dependent :D
    I think it's a paradox rather. Time started to exist too, right?



    Of course I am, I'm having problems with a lot of things. Like an infinite universe, like time having a beginning, like matter being located in a singularity.

    But how are any of these problems resolved by inventing something yet more unfathomable??
    Then how can you reject the notion god, but not reject all these other things that you don't grasp?


    So what is it in your definition of god that's missing in deism? I don't get that.
    I guess it's neglectibly subtle, so never mind.
     

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
    #43
    I think it's a paradox rather. Time started to exist too, right?
    Yeah, allegedly.

    Then how can you reject the notion god, but not reject all these other things that you don't grasp?
    Occam's razor for one. Adding god solves nothing, it deepens the problem. See god is by definition impossible to understand, so if my goal is understanding why on earth would I want such a thing?

    And secondly, the descriptions of the universe, however counterintuitive they may be, are at least based on some kind of physical observations.

    And for a third, the universe is still based on matter. god apparently is not. The first makes sense to me, the second does not.
     

    rounder

    Blindman
    Jun 13, 2007
    7,233
    #44
    The only way to hope to make any sense of the universe is to treat it like a special case. The universe is not "like everything else", it is precisely: everything.

    You cannot first state that "the universe defines time" and then say "what time was it before the universe". The same goes for causality. If there is no time before the universe there's also no cause, because cause is measured in time, yes?

    Btw, what you said about subparticles being the cause of particles is a very strange take on causality. Usually we talk about causality as related events in time.
    This is correct, thus God could have caused the Big Bang simultaneously with the progression of time.
     
    OP
    Dinsdale
    Jun 26, 2007
    2,706
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #45
    Yeah, allegedly.



    Occam's razor for one. Adding god solves nothing, it deepens the problem. See god is by definition impossible to understand, so if my goal is understanding why on earth would I want such a thing?

    And secondly, the descriptions of the universe, however counterintuitive they may be, are at least based on some kind of physical observations.

    And for a third, the universe is still based on matter. god apparently is not. The first makes sense to me, the second does not.
    Sure, that's why I also believe god doesn't exist. But these 3 points don't proof anything.

    And now don't get started with your Flying Spaghetti Monster. Because that monster doesn't have a function. God does.
     

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
    #46
    Sure, that's why I also believe god doesn't exist. But these 3 points don't proof anything.
    What we're saying is god doesn't add anything useful.

    And since I've stated that the definition of god (immaterial for one) doesn't make any more sense to me than a square circle, I don't feel the burden to take it any further than that.

    And now don't get started with your Flying Spaghetti Monster. Because that monster doesn't have a function. God does.
    Says who? Why couldn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster create the universe? I mean it's not like we're setting down requirements you have to meet to be the creator.
     

    rounder

    Blindman
    Jun 13, 2007
    7,233
    #47
    Occam's razor for one. Adding god solves nothing, it deepens the problem. See god is by definition impossible to understand, so if my goal is understanding why on earth would I want such a thing?

    And secondly, the descriptions of the universe, however counterintuitive they may be, are at least based on some kind of physical observations.

    And for a third, the universe is still based on matter. god apparently is not. The first makes sense to me, the second does not.

    Actually, following Occam's razor, God is the simplest explanation.




    Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent God. A God which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in himself has his own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning.

    Occam's razor is actually a good argument for the existence of God. I will explain why

    Contrary to the statements above, the universe cannot replace God as explanation for its own existence. The universe is finite in both size and time. The universe had a beginning in finite time at the moment of the Big Bang. How did this universe decide to create itself? How did the universe design itself with physical laws and parameters exactly fine tuned to support life?(Yes, the finetuning argument again).

    The laws of physics are designed with such precision that it is almost inconceivable that they could be the result of chance. For example, take the ratio of the number of electrons to protons. This ratio must be exactly equal to one to one to better than one part in 1037 (10 to the 37th power, or "1" followed by 37 zeros), otherwise electromagnetic forces would have superseded gravitational forces and no galaxies, stars or planets would have ever formed in the entire history of the universe.


    The likelihood of this occurring by chance is described below:

    One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billion of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037.11

    Other constants of physics, such as the expansion rate of the universe, are fine-tuned even more delicately, as small as one part in 1055. Random chance does not design such a well-crafted universe. All the atheistic explanations for such an exquisitely defined universe require the presence of trillions of other universes, of which ours is the one which happened, by chance, to have the exact physics required for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. Therefore the atheistic explanation actually goes against Occam's razor since it requires some mechanism by which universes can sprout from some super universe and randomly change their laws of physics. If one were to calculate the number of universes required, by chance, to have the exact physics required for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, it would exceed 1010000 (talk about multiplying entities!). The mechanism by which physical laws could randomly evolve would add further complexity. Design by an intelligent designer is obviously a much simpler explanation.

    The statement that "the world stands above time" is false. The universe stands within time, having come into existence at time = 0. See Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

    "Most theists agree that God has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created God's nature? If we just accept that God has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?"

    God is uncreated, therefore His nature is just as eternal as He is. Although it is possible the universe and the physical laws could exist without a cause, 1 in 1010000 is not exactly what one would call good betting odds. It would be much more likely that your car's engine would thermodynamically reverse itself (i.e., freeze solid instead of warm up) every time you started it.
     
    OP
    Dinsdale
    Jun 26, 2007
    2,706
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #48
    What we're saying is god doesn't add anything useful.

    And since I've stated that the definition of god (immaterial for one) doesn't make any more sense to me than a square circle, I don't feel the burden to take it any further than that.
    Some atheists are claiming a lot more than that. If you're not claiming god doesn't exist, I have no problem with your viewpoint and I probably completely share it.


    Says who? Why couldn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster create the universe? I mean it's not like we're setting down requirements you have to meet to be the creator.
    Easy. How could that monster create spacetime if it's part of the spacetime?
     

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
    #49
    Some atheists are claiming a lot more than that. If you're not claiming god doesn't exist, I have no problem with your viewpoint and I probably completely share it.
    If you want to be precise about it, I haven't gotten to the point of claiming that god doesn't exist because I still don't have a definition of god to consider for possible existence that I can make any sense of. Square circle, does that exist? The question is malformed, because "square circle" cannot evaluate to any meaningful value that can be considered for any property.

    Easy. How could that monster create spacetime if it's part of the spacetime?
    I thought you were saying there is reason to accept god but not the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Were you?

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists solely for the purpose of debunking god. Ie. whenever god "fits in" so does the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
     

    rounder

    Blindman
    Jun 13, 2007
    7,233
    #50
    Martin, you see what you are doing is this. You are merely using the name 'Flying Spaghetti Monster" and your are replacing that with "God". That doesn't solve anything.

    Since the God we are talking about does not have definite qualities, we cannot label it anything but God, because labelling God superman, or the Flying Spaghetti monster will mean that you are giving God determinsitic qualities and this in essence, is impossible.

    If the word God is what is making you uncomfortable, we can just call this indeterministic supernatural being "X". Would that solve the problem?
     
    OP
    Dinsdale
    Jun 26, 2007
    2,706
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #51
    If you want to be precise about it, I haven't gotten to the point of claiming that god doesn't exist because I still don't have a definition of god to consider for possible existence that I can make any sense of. Square circle, does that exist? The question is malformed, because "square circle" cannot evaluate to any meaningful value that can be considered for any property.
    Does our universe have a cause? If yes, god exists. If not, it doesn't.

    Do mass-having objects move towards each other? If yes, gravity exists. If not, gravity doesn't exist.

    I thought you were saying there is reason to accept god but not the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Were you?
    Not accept, rather "not reject". Being neutral.

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists solely for the purpose of debunking god. Ie. whenever god "fits in" so does the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    You're using a weird definition of existence then. :D
     

    rounder

    Blindman
    Jun 13, 2007
    7,233
    #52
    If you want to be precise about it, I haven't gotten to the point of claiming that god doesn't exist because I still don't have a definition of god to consider for possible existence that I can make any sense of. Square circle, does that exist? The question is malformed, because "square circle" cannot evaluate to any meaningful value that can be considered for any property.
    Oh?

    So let me get this straight. Are you stating that you know that God does not exist and you are 100% sure?
     
    OP
    Dinsdale
    Jun 26, 2007
    2,706
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #53
    Valid point. Some don't need a definition of god before claiming god doesn't exist, but at the same time they're asking for a definition in order to examine the statement "god exists". Hence why I came up with this core definition that even atheists implicitely know. Or are they saying "X doesn't exist" before defining X themselves first?
     

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
    #54
    Valid point. Some don't need a definition of god before claiming god doesn't exist, but at the same time they're asking for a definition in order to examine the statement "god exists". Hence why I came up with this core definition that even atheists implicitely know. Or are they saying "X doesn't exist" before defining X themselves first?
    The thing is that if someone asks you a "yes/no" question and you try to explain to them why the premise of the question is illogical, by giving an expansive answer, and all they take from that is to re-ask the same question and insist you answer it, well then what point is there in giving the full answer at all? Some people just don't appreciate subtlety and just take the words they want to see out of the context to hold them up as some kind of victory.

    That's why I did that.
     

    rounder

    Blindman
    Jun 13, 2007
    7,233
    #55
    Valid point. Some don't need a definition of god before claiming god doesn't exist, but at the same time they're asking for a definition in order to examine the statement "god exists". Hence why I came up with this core definition that even atheists implicitely know. Or are they saying "X doesn't exist" before defining X themselves first?
    Fair enough.


    But if indeed it was only the definition he was lacking, how can he conclusively claim that he knows God does not exist.

    This is the same as:

    You: Do you believe that forces exist?
    Me: No.

    You: Do you know what forces are?
    Me: No.

    A better answer from the atheistic part would be:

    You: Do you believe that forces exist?
    Me: Define what you mean by forces.

    However, atheists instead resort to making bold irrational statements like the first case.
     

    rounder

    Blindman
    Jun 13, 2007
    7,233
    #56
    The thing is that if someone asks you a "yes/no" question and you try to explain to them why the premise of the question is illogical, by giving an expansive answer, and all they take from that is to re-ask the same question and insist you answer it, well then what point is there in giving the full answer at all? Some people just don't appreciate subtlety and just right to the words they want to see.

    That's why I did that.
    When did I ever do such a thing?
    If you told me you wanted a definition instead of just saying "No", I would have gladly tried to define God to you.
     
    OP
    Dinsdale
    Jun 26, 2007
    2,706
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #57
    The thing is that if someone asks you a "yes/no" question and you try to explain to them why the premise of the question is illogical, by giving an expansive answer, and all they take from that is to re-ask the same question and insist you answer it, well then what point is there in giving the full answer at all? Some people just don't appreciate subtlety and just take the words they want to see out of the context to hold them up as some kind of victory.

    That's why I did that.
    Fair enough I guess.

    Fair enough.


    But if indeed it was only the definition he was lacking, how can he conclusively claim that he knows God does not exist.

    This is the same as:

    You: Do you believe that forces exist?
    Me: No.

    You: Do you know what forces are?
    Me: No.

    A better answer from the atheistic part would be:

    You: Do you believe that forces exist?
    Me: Define what you mean by forces.

    However, atheists instead resort to making bold irrational statements like the first case.
    That's basically what I said.
     

    rounder

    Blindman
    Jun 13, 2007
    7,233
    #58
    Also, I never suggested that you should consider the existence of the theistic God in particular. I strictly made sure that we were discussing the existence of a supernatural entity, and why it is unintelligible to state that you know one does not exist.

    I have a feeling Martin is holding a grudge on me.:D
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)