NationStates Jolt Archive

An argument against the existence of a God who purposefully created the Universe with an intention of it supporting life is presented by Quentin Smith:

Smith expresses his argument as such :

(1) The big bang singularity is the earliest state of the universe.
(2) The earliest state of the universe is inanimate.
(3) No law governs the big bang singularity and consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate universe.
(4) The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe. (from 1 to 3)

To which we should add :

(5) ’[I]f [God] created the earliest state of the universe, then he would have ensured that this state is animate or evolves into animate states of the universe’.
(6) God does not exist. (from 4 and 5)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/big_bang_cosmological_argument/


From what I understand, what would have come out of the singularity was random, and thus God could have not created it with a prior intention of it turning into the current Universe the way it is. So:
If the Big Bang model is correct, does this mean God is incompatible with science?
Is this a 'proof' for God's nonexistence if the Big Bang Theory is accepted?

God is magic. It sounds stupid, but it's true, and it bulldozes any proof that attempts to be logical.

'Tis the one thing I prefer not to think about. *nod*

God is magic. It sounds stupid, but it’s true, and it bulldozes any proof that attempts to be logical.
Quite.


A believer can always put a god or gods beyond and above the discernible ‘laws’ of logic and science.

The Big Bang was God holding up a cigarette lighter while farting. End of discussion.

From what I understand, (1) what would have come out of the singularity was random, (2) and thus God could have not created it with a prior intention of it turning into the current Universe the way it is. So:
If the Big Bang model is correct, does this mean God is incompatible with science? (3)
Is this a 'proof' for God's nonexistence if the Big Bang Theory is accepted? (4)

1: Or apparently random
2: Right because god is omnipotent at least supposedly
3: No, god is incompatible with science because he cannot be tested for
4: Once again no

Edit: Also fail on the poll

'Tis the one thing I prefer not to think about. *nod*

Why, do you find thinking painful? Or are you just afraid of examining other possibilities?

can’t God be tested for? Like the experiment that was conducted to see if cancer patients that were prayed for healed more often than those who did not recieve any prayers?
Whatever such a tests results, it goes no further to prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods.

i find #5

’[i]f [God] created the earliest state of the universe, then he would have ensured that this state is animate or evolves into animate states of the universe’.

to be an unfounded assumption.

god may well have created millions of such singularities over the (nonexistent) eons until one emitted the required configuration. there was no need to guarantee "success" on the first try.

1: Or apparently random
2: Right because god is omnipotent at least supposedly
3: No, god is incompatible with science because he cannot be tested for
4: Once again no

Edit: Also fail on the poll



Why, do you find thinking painful? Or are you just afraid of examining other possibilities?

can't God be tested for? Like the experiment that was conducted to see if cancer patients that were prayed for healed more often than those who did not recieve any prayers?

can't God be tested for? Like the experiment that was conducted to see if cancer patients that were prayed for healed more often than those who did not recieve any prayers?

That doesn't prove the existence of God, though. Even theologians will tell you that prayer has a huge impact on the person praying, not just the recipient of the prayer. The patients that prayed may have felt more at peace or less stressed. Or, God may have interceded upon their behalf. But we can only test natural phenonoma, and those do not include deities.

can't God be tested for?

No

I was talking more about the Deist God, the “Great watchmaker” or that set up the dominoes and set them off. The one that some people believe IS compatible with science (i.e. accept evolution...and so on)
There’s certainly a problem with a god who’s above the laws of nature yet able to interact with them. Much of the philosophical writings of Descartes, Spinoza and Liebniz (to name a few) are concerned with this problem. ‘Substance’ and all that...

But one could still claim that one's god or gods was compatible yet outside the laws of science and not be proven wrong.

Quite.


A believer can always put a god or gods beyond and above the discernible ‘laws’ of logic and science.

I was talking more about the Deist God, the "Great watchmaker" or that set up the dominoes and set them off. The one that some people believe IS compatible with science (i.e. accept evolution...and so on)

I was talking more about the Deist God, the "Great watchmaker" or that set up the dominoes and set them off. The one that some people believe IS compatible with science (i.e. accept evolution...and so on)

Any god can be compatible with science as far as the believer having faith in the deity, but no god can be tested for scientifically.

can't God be tested for? Like the experiment that was conducted to see if cancer patients that were prayed for healed more often than those who did not recieve any prayers?
No because God is supernatural, science's tools can ONLY be used on the natural world. It's why we can't really test for anything beyond the universe (Though of course can speculate a whole hell of a lot) because out tools only work in THIS universe and assume that the physical laws hold true everywhere within. Once you go outside that... well, it would be akin to attempting to assemble a plane with just a hammer.

No because God is supernatural, science’s tools can ONLY be used on the natural world.
And only on certain aspects of the natural world.

It would be just as fruitless for science to empirically determine how much I love my brother, or how much I dislike eating lemon curd, or what I enjoy about the look of Rothko’s paintings, etc.

Whatever such a tests results, it goes no further to prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods.

really? I had thought that if 100% of the patients who were prayed for healed and 0% of those who weren't died, it would be some sort of sign that prayers do actually work, wouldn't it?

i find #5

’[i]f [God] created the earliest state of the universe, then he would have ensured that this state is animate or evolves into animate states of the universe’.

to be an unfounded assumption.

god may well have created millions of such singularities over the (nonexistent) eons until one emitted the required configuration. there was no need to guarantee "success" on the first try.

However if christians are right and god is omnipotent then he could simply have arranged things for it to go right the first time

I had thought that if 100% of the patients who were prayed for healed and 0% of those who weren’t died, it would be some sort of sign that prayers do actually work, wouldn’t it?
No, because you can’t control the parameters of an experiment with something like prayer; it’s not in the same league as, say, determining whether there’s hydrochloric acid in a test tube by putting some magnesium in.

We can’t say for certain that the difference in each experiment was the prayer. If we turn the tables and say that there was no difference between in improvement between those patients who prayed an those that didn’t, how do we know God doesn’t refrain from granting prayers in the aid of scientific experiments?

The believer can always come up with such a ‘trump card’ argument.

No, because you can’t control the parameters of an experiment with something like prayer; it’s not in the same league as, say, determining whether there’s hydrochloric acid in a test tube by putting some magnesium in.

We can’t say for certain that the difference in each experiment was the prayer. If we turn the tables and say that there was no difference between in improvement between those patients who prayed an those that didn’t, how do we know God doesn’t refrain from granting prayers in the aid of scientific experiments?

Right. It's hard enough to prove that something natural is the cause, and often times what was once thought to be real treatment is really an effective placebo. Trying to experiment with God is like trying to experiment on something that obeys the laws of nature when it feels like it. In other words, this test subject is sometimes acidic and sometimes basic. Sometimes it is weakly attracted by gravity, other times it is repelled. Oh, by the way, it's also invisible.
See how that would be difficult?

I voted for the wrong one, damnit

Oh now, you misunderstood me, this wasn't to prove God's inexistence, it was to prove God's existence. And in fact such an experiment was indeed conducted (as Dawkins mentions in God Delusion). It was true random sampling and a large enough number of trials. I actually do think that if all the ones who were prayed for healed and all the ones who weren't prayed for died, and could be repeated, this WOULD in fact show that prayers work.
It was well controlled, each patient's name was given at random to assigned people to pray for him, I think it's just like any other scientific experiment, isn't it?

Assuming that the experiment was actually done, got those results, and was repeatable it would lend credence to the existence of the christian god.

No, because you can’t control the parameters of an experiment with something like prayer; it’s not in the same league as, say, determining whether there’s hydrochloric acid in a test tube by putting some magnesium in.

We can’t say for certain that the difference in each experiment was the prayer. If we turn the tables and say that there was no difference between in improvement between those patients who prayed an those that didn’t, how do we know God doesn’t refrain from granting prayers in the aid of scientific experiments?

The believer can always come up with such a ‘trump card’ argument.

Oh now, you misunderstood me, this wasn't to prove God's inexistence, it was to prove God's existence. And in fact such an experiment was indeed conducted (as Dawkins mentions in God Delusion). It was true random sampling and a large enough number of trials. I actually do think that if all the ones who were prayed for healed and all the ones who weren't prayed for died, and could be repeated, this WOULD in fact show that prayers work.
It was well controlled, each patient's name was given at random to assigned people to pray for him, I think it's just like any other scientific experiment, isn't it?

Oh now, you misunderstood me, this wasn’t to prove God’s inexistence, it was to prove God’s existence.
Same applies.

It was well controlled, each patient’s name was given at random to assigned people to pray for him, I think it’s just like any other scientific experiment, isn’t it?
Nope, because prayer, as a necessarily supernatural thing, isn’t something one can control in a necessarily natural laboratory environment.

It's like one of the examples I gave above; try and scientifically show me the amount of love I have for my brother. You won't be able to because love, just like prayer, isn't empirically testable. It's outside of the scientific framework.

However if christians are right and god is omnipotent then he could simply have arranged things for it to go right the first time

sure could have but there was some implication in the first 4 items that (i think) was supposed to preclude that possibility.

in any case i dont see that it means that god doesnt exist.

Nope, because prayer, as a necessarily supernatural thing, isn’t something one can control in a necessarily natural laboratory environment.

what do you mean? they were observed praying out loud to God mentioning the patient's name and asking God to heal him. They repeated this every day. The prayer part is not supernatural, the results of it are. If in fact all the patients that were prayed for had healed and all the ones not prayed for died, this must show that prayers DO WORK. I don't see how not.

what do you mean? they were observed praying out loud to God mentioning the patient’s name and asking God to heal him. They repeated this every day.
You’ve still not created a scientific environment.

For a start, you’ve got to be able to show without any doubt whatsoever, that (a) those who pray genuinely believe in prayer and their god/gods, (b) that they are praying correctly (c) that they have not angered their god/gods, (d) that their god/gods answers prayers conducted in a scientific experiment, and a whole host of other variables that are impossible to tie down.

The prayer part is not supernatural, the results of it are.
Of course the prayer is supernatural, it involves (allegedly) supernatural forces.

Hm, I'm the only one to vote against the Big Bang theory so far. Here's a quick explanation of why the Big Bang theory is flawed.

First, we haven't found any "end" to the universe. We can only hope to find the beginning of the part of the universe we know of. For all we know, there's a massive ring contracting outside our detectable range causing the appearance of expansion.

Second, if all of the mass and energy in the universe is compacted to a single point, the point would be ultra-dense. You have a near-infinite mass in a near-infinitely small point. All the universe's energy would be potential instead of kinetic because of the massive gravitational pull. In order for a single particle to escape, the amount of energy spent would have to be massive. There's nothing to suggest a massive change to kinetic energy in a situation like that.

Third, it's based upon our current understanding of the laws of physics. Given that our understanding of those laws was considerably different 500 years ago, I'm sure we all agree that our understanding of them will be different 500 years from now. I'm willing to bet that they'll be so different that a Big Bang concept would be the equivalent of assuming the world was flat.

(apologies that I won't be able to follow this up for a few days; I'll be on a trip)

sure could have but there was some implication in the first 4 items that (i think) was supposed to preclude that possibility.

in any case i dont see that it means that god doesnt exist.

It doesn't, and I actually agree with you, just felt like pointing out that detail :p

but do you agree that if all the ones who were prayed for healed and all the others died, it would show that prayer does indeed work?

See my answer above

Assuming that the experiment was actually done, got those results, and was repeatable it would lend credence to the existence of the christian god.

You’ve still not created a scientific environment.

For a start, you’ve got to be able to show without any doubt whatsoever, that (a) those who pray genuinely believe in prayer and their god/gods, (b) that they are praying correctly (c) that they have not angered their god/gods, (d) that their god/gods answers prayers conducted in a scientific experiment, and a whole host of other variables that are impossible to tie down.


no you dont. those might be further refinements but all you HAVE to have are words that are accepted as being prayers.

if that worked, it would mean that prayer works.

that is ALL it would prove. it would not prove that god exists.

You’ve still not created a scientific environment.

For a start, you’ve got to be able to show without any doubt whatsoever, that (a) those who pray genuinely believe in prayer and their god/gods, (b) that they are praying correctly (c) that they have not angered their god/gods, (d) that their god/gods answers prayers conducted in a scientific experiment, and a whole host of other variables that are impossible to tie down.


Of course the prayer is supernatural, it involves (allegedly) supernatural forces.

but do you agree that if all the ones who were prayed for healed and all the others died, it would show that prayer does indeed work?

<SNIP>

So your basis on the Big Bang Theory being wrong can be summed up as: In a half a millenia we might have a better theory?

but do you agree that if all the ones who were prayed for healed and all the others died, it would show that prayer does indeed work?

There is a difference between prayer curing disease and God curing disease because of prayer. If I drop an apple, it falls. It is possible that every time the apple is in this situation, God pulls it down to earth. But it is also possible there is a natural law (perhaps one created by God) that doesn't require His constant attention.

From what I understand, what would have come out of the singularity was random, and thus God could have not created it with a prior intention of it turning into the current Universe the way it is. So:
If the Big Bang model is correct, does this mean God is incompatible with science?
Is this a 'proof' for God's nonexistence if the Big Bang Theory is accepted?

When we say random we say random from a statistical/forces viewpoint. There is no way of proving or disproving any kind of imperative behind it. It comes down to a Schrodingers Cat scenario. The cat in the box could be either alive or dead, so we must assume it is both and work off of both assumptions. It is not both alive and dead, as mistaken lore goes - we just have no way of knowing which it is, so we assume both and hedge our bets.

Likewise, the universe formed, but the forces that were displayed and the "randomness" inherent in other possibilities with those forces and circumstances mean that other possibilities existed, so when analyzing the first few seconds/minutes of our universe's existence, we have to work with the potential that something else could have occurred, but some kind of "imperative" or "will" behind it cannot be analyzed, noticed, or falsified. It is not disproven or even implied as discluded, it simply disregarded for the simple and basic reason that we have no way of looking at it.

Consider this physical law:

Second Law of Thermodynamics:

Any spontaneous reaction will increase the inherent disorder of the universe.

In other words, order, such as the singularity at the start of the big bang, cannot naturally form, according to our current set of physical laws. It is impossible. Unless you are going to claim that the universe just mysteriously "started," or else that the physical laws did not hold during that era, there is no way you can claim that the Big Bang occurred without some kind of outside intervention, and I do not believe either of those assertions involve any less faith then believing in God.

that is ALL it would prove. it would not prove that god exists.

but do you agree that if all the ones who were prayed for healed and all the others died, it would show that prayer does indeed work?
The experiment wouldn’t prove anything scientifically, because it’s not a scientifically rigorous experiment; as I have shown above, you've not removed all the variables.

I might well be amazed at the results and perhaps want to think about re-evaluating my non-belief, but you’ve shown nothing scientifically.

You're trying to quantify the non-quantifiable, observe the unobservable, etc. Simply not possible.

God is magic. It sounds stupid, but it's true, and it bulldozes any proof that attempts to be logical.

Exactly. How can someone (through logic) suggest that the singularitymust have led to a random universe? Could an infinite God not have shaped the direction of the expanding universe? If not, why?

Where is the proof that this singularity is un-manipulatable? Indeed, one would have to prove the existence, and limitations (or lack thereof) of God, in order to know what He can, and cannot do, in order to thus disprove him.

Or, perhaps God allowed the random singularity, and created what life He could from whatever the results might have been. Maybe He saw how the universe was forming, and created humanity off of the universe.

The logical argument itself is bogus, as he makes two claims that need not follow (even from their steps), and that do not have scientific backing.

There is a difference between prayer curing disease and God curing disease because of prayer. If I drop an apple, it falls. It is possible that every time the apple is in this situation, God pulls it down to earth. But it is also possible there is a natural law (perhaps one created by God) that doesn't require His constant attention.

no you dont. those might be further refinements but all you HAVE to have are words that are accepted as being prayers.

if that worked, it would mean that prayer works.

that is ALL it would prove. it would not prove that god exists.

right to both of you. It would prove that prayer works.

but do you agree that if all the ones who were prayed for healed and all the others died, it would show that prayer does indeed work?
No, because we have not eliminated other variables as well (Not to mention the whole thing would be highly unethical).

You asking to qualify magic. Magic cannot be qualified because it is, by definition, bending the laws of the physical world.

It would prove that prayer works.
How would you show me that it wasn’t just a freak co-incidence?

The short answer is you couldn’t, because you couldn’t show that you had created a scientifically rigorous experiment with proper control cases.

Everyone knows God runs on Vista.

Exactly. 1How can someone (through logic) suggest that the singularitymust have led to a random universe? 2Could an infinite God not have shaped the direction of the expanding universe? If not, why?
.
1It is through Physics that it is shown that the singularity could have turned into this universe, a different universe, multiple universes, or none at all. I think.
2Yes, if we're talking about an intervening God yes.

Where is the proof that this singularity is un-manipulatable? Indeed, one would have to prove the existence, and limitations (or lack thereof) of God, in order to know what He can, and cannot do, in order to thus disprove him.

Its within the precise definitions of the singularity, but again intervening vs. non.

Or, perhaps God allowed the random singularity, and created what life He could from whatever the results might have been. Maybe He saw how the universe was forming, and created humanity off of the universe.

right. That yes.

How would you show me that it wasn’t just a freak co-incidence?

The short answer is you couldn’t, because you couldn’t show that you had created a scientifically rigorous experiment with proper control cases.

repeated trials, just like any other experiment conducted scientifically. It could be made scientific. What I'm saying is that you get people to say the words outloud: "Please God let X Y get healed" and see if it works. Sounds pretty scientific to me.

i find #5

’[i]f [God] created the earliest state of the universe, then he would have ensured that this state is animate or evolves into animate states of the universe’.

to be an unfounded assumption.

god may well have created millions of such singularities over the (nonexistent) eons until one emitted the required configuration. there was no need to guarantee "success" on the first try.

Exactly.

I find it silly to argue that what we know scientifically about the Universe negates there being a god that by definition we know nothing and can't ever know anything about.

I hate these threads, also, because it assumes a god that is usually shaped by the concept of the Judeo-Christian one, that is, that god is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. blah blah blah. However, that's not the only take on god.

This is one of the most annoying kinds of threads on here. Sorry, big bang theory (which I accept myself, as it stands up to scrutiny pretty well) doesn't negate the possibility of god(s). Neither does evolution (another even more well supported theory), before that gets brought up. Since god is impossible to prove, it's rather pointless to attempt to disprove her/him/it/they whatever.

Sounds pretty scientific to me.
Well you’d be wrong; unless you can show how you’d have a control for a supernatural being who is claimed to be able to change the laws of science. :p

Your dealing with something that’s outside the scientific framework. Just as you can’t describe the beauty of a painting in scientific terms, or test empirically the emotions an individual has for their lover, you can’t scientifically test for the effect of prayer.

Prayer is necessarily a supernatural phenomena (if it is real); science necessarily deals with phenomena which are exclusively natural. You can’t use mathematics to investigate a problem of language because the two operate inside different frameworks. The same goes with natural and supernatural phenomena.

You could perhaps show that there is correlation or not between prayer and health, but you couldn’t prove any causation, because such causation (if it existed) wouldn’t be able to be measured by any scientific means.

Exactly.

I find it silly to argue that what we know scientifically about the Universe negates there being a god that by definition we know nothing and can't ever know anything about.

I hate these threads, also, because it assumes a god that is usually shaped by the concept of the Judeo-Christian one, that is, that god is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. blah blah blah. However, that's not the only take on god.

This is one of the most annoying kinds of threads on here. Sorry, big bang theory (which I accept myself, as it stands up to scrutiny pretty well) doesn't negate the possibility of god(s). Neither does evolution (another even more well supported theory), before that gets brought up. Since god is impossible to prove, it's rather pointless to attempt to disprove her/him/it/they whatever.

This isn't that kind of thread. It's the kind of thread that aims to discuss whether someone can accept the big bang theory and the random nature of the singularity while at the same time believe that there is a God who planned it all ahead of time and purposefully set the singularity with no further intervention to become what the universe is now. I think people misinterpret it. Please don't turn it into that kind of thread.

Just an argument to throw out there:

Assuming God or gods created the universe, would they not be outside of the universe? For example, if I created a RP world, I am in effect the god of the universe. I give the universe laws and rules, which I, being the creator (and existing, at first, outside of the universe) do not have to follow. Therefore, could it not be possible that both God and science coexist without being mutually exclusive.

Another philosophical point to add on: so long as someone imagines that a god or gods exist, they can seen to have actions (on at least that said person) and therefore exist.

I personally dislike atheism and unquestioning theism, I feel that so long as we cannot fully explain the mysteries of conscious, and especially, self-consciousness, that we cannot absolutely rule out or rule in a divine figure. I also feel that should one be an atheist, one should encourage theism, for it creates a system of supernatural consequence, and therefore helps to maintain order and law in our society.

Big Bang sets all matter and energy in motion. Basic physics dictates the patterns matter follows on fundamental levels, making the course things follow inevitable. No matter how sophisticated the matter interactions are, the patterns are still set by preceeding reactions. As such, the Big Bang allows for a predetermined course for existence, and a theist could argue this predetermined course was set out by a higher power.

So, yes, it works.

Big Bang sets all matter and energy in motion. Basic physics dictates the patterns matter follows on fundamental levels, making the course things follow inevitable. No matter how sophisticated the matter interactions are, the patterns are still set by preceeding reactions. As such, the Big Bang allows for a predetermined course for existence, and a theist could argue this predetermined course was set out by a higher power.

So, yes, it works.

Um, did you read about the singularity issue?

really? I had thought that if 100% of the patients who were prayed for healed and 0% of those who weren't died, it would be some sort of sign that prayers do actually work, wouldn't it?

Those prayers from those people maybe.

It would do nothing to prove or disprove the existence of god.

For one, perhaps a god only responds to certain prayers, for reasons that are incomprehensible to us. Perhaps it depends on the people who need to be healed, perhaps it depends on the people doing the praying, and whether they actually believe. It also depends on what god can actually do. Not all gods that people believe in are omnipotent, you know. Mine isn't. Get out of the Judeo-Christian box.

Um, did you read about the singularity issue?
It’s a related problem to the one we’ve been discussing, and it has a similar answer:

You can’t disprove a god that supposedly can change and exist outside of the rules of cause-and-effect, science, etc., by appealing to his incompatibility with the rules of cause-and-effect, science, etc.

This isn't that kind of thread. It's the kind of thread that aims to discuss whether someone can accept the big bang theory and the random nature of the singularity while at the same time believe that there is a God who planned it all ahead of time and purposefully set the singularity with no further intervention to become what the universe is now. I think people misinterpret it. Please don't turn it into that kind of thread.

Then your poll is inaccurate to what you're trying to ask. It only asks if god is compatible with the big bang. She is. You fail. Not my fault that you did a crap job of poll making and thread titling.

Anyway, this universe could be the 753rd singularity attempted, and the first one to succeed. Gods are generally immortal, though not always, and sometimes dependent on some other thing for that immortality, but generally speaking, they have enough time to waste for that to be possible. In any case, we'll never know.

Why is everyone on this board so hellbent on proving that God does/does not exist?

can't God be tested for? Like the experiment that was conducted to see if cancer patients that were prayed for healed more often than those who did not recieve any prayers?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403133554.htm
?

Why is everyone on this board so hellbent on proving that God does/does not exist?

I have no idea, considering that it's an impossibly fruitless exercise.

Why is everyone on this board so hellbent on proving that God does/does not exist?

It fares better for *everyone* that there is no OT biblical "God". He was, in all sincerity, one of the most infantile, bloodthirsty, irrational pricks in history .... for all the wrong reasons.

Could an infinite God not have shaped the direction of the expanding universe?
Irrelevant. "Infinite" doesn't exist, and can't be used as parameters, pretty much by definition.

what I enjoy about the look of Rothko’s paintings, etc.
:eek:

Ed was at the end of his rope, an expression he detested. "There is no
rope!" he would scream at the laughing walls. "There is only the end.
No hope, no rope. Ending is better than mending. Doors of perception,
windows of opportunity -- these are illusions, like the killing floor."
Ed spoke in a squeaky whiny voice with perhaps a slight tinge of glee,
but this was only because he couldn't be bothered to try to develop a
manner of speaking that truly reflected his mood. "This is a vacuum.
There is no air in this room. Despair is no fun anymore. Nihilism
knocked three times on the ceiling, but the rosy fingers of dawn always
inserted themselves in the nose of unfulfilled promises. Angels sang
Heysanna Hosanna, paralyzed prima-donnas danced in the streets all day,
but when darkness came, everybody went home. I was ready - everyone
else was asleep. And while it may have been a relief to see that I was
right all along, here I am still: alone and trapped, awaiting the
endless end. And I can turn it all around, and laugh at it and laugh at
myself; I can laugh louder than the walls, the halls the waterfalls,
louder than Charles de Gaul or Fulton Mall, but I don't know what I'm
laughing at, I don't know just what I think is so goddamn funny. I
don't know why I don't just shut up and give up and lay down and die.
What do I have to complain about anyway," Ed asked his Picasso, "I'm a
millionaire!" This wasn't exactly true. Ed's Picasso was an obvious
forgery, his three Rothkos had just been singled out in an article in
ARTFORUM entitled "The three most insignificant paintings of Mark
Rothko," and his Barbara Kruegers had been irreparably damaged by Rein
Sanction and a few other bands from Gainesville that refused to
acknowledge the value of art.
"Come to think of it," Ed mused to the laminated roadkill coffee table
that he had purchased when times had seemed slightly less bleak, "Come
to think of it, not only does art have no intrinsic value, but my
collection has no extrinsic value either. I know I'm not a millionaire,
but that's no reason to complain. There is no reason to complain.
There is no reason to do anything. I don't believe in reason, objective
reality, or collective farming. I don't believe in public speaking,
which is another reason why I'm here alone. I don't believe in life or
death, I would kill myself, but I don't believe in suicide." Ed put on
a red shirt and took a quick walk around the block while whistling
softly to himself. He reentered his apartment screaming, "There is no
life on this planet! Jehovah-One replaced all life with machinery five
centuries ago. the so-called industrial revolution was just another
hoax and we all fell for it, 'cause we were all programmed to. Even I
fell for it, I believe in the steam engine, even though I don't believe
in anything. Logical inconsistency is the Mr. bubble I bathe in each
and every evening, except for yesterday evening, when I rollerbladed
over to the Masonic temple to play pinochle with Pope John Paul the
First. I really had no choice in the matter." "Ed certainly could go
on and on, and he did, and he would, and he will, until you or I or
somebody does something about it." Senator Sterno of Arkansas announced
over closed circuit television. "And as long as he continues to
pontificate pointlessly, I will do nothing." Ed walked away from the
program feeling fortified and stapled. His brain was buzzing, the way
it always did just after Jeopardy. He loaded up the microbus with
Atlases and Poseidons and headed for Pope county.
"I've had it." He sang, "I've had it with puns, alliteration, russian
literature, Italian neorealism, meaningless cross references and laundry
lists of nonsense. I shall drive without a license, without clothing,
without direction and if I make it to Louisiana, fine, and if I'm
running late, if I'm running a numbers game, it doesn't matter, I shall
keep on running. Yes, this is the answer. This is the ending, I shall
keep on running, because a body in motion tends to stay emotional, and
it's better to feel. Pain is better than emptiness, emptiness is better
than nothing, and nothing is better than this."
:cool:

That's a profoundly weak argument. Aside from the colossal assumptions it makes that are completely without any kind of verifiable proof it has complete disregard for the anthropic principle (which clearly shows that this universe was in fact guaranteed to develop life, or else we wouldn't be here), which must be assumed in order for any argument regarding this universe to make sense.

No physical law. If God exists, the laws that govern the universe are not limited to those.

which must be assumed in order for any argument regarding this universe to make sense.
:eek: :eek:
I want to be different, like everybody else I want to be like
I want to be just like all the different people
I have no further interest in being the same,
because I have seen difference all around,
and now I know that that's what I want
I don't want to blend in and be indistinguishable,
I want to be a part of the different crowd,
and assert my individuality along with the others
who are different like me
I don't want to be identical to anyone or anything
I don't even want to be identical to myself
I want to look in the mirror and wonder,
"who is that person? I've never seen that person before;
I've never seen anyone like that before."
I want to call into question thevery idea that
identity can be attached
I want a floating, shifting, ever changing persona:
Invisibility and obscurity,
detachment from the ego and all of it's pursuits.
Unity is useless
Conformity is competitive and divisive and leads only to
stagnation and death.
If what I'm saying doesn't make any sense,
that's because sense can not be made
It's something that must be sensed
And I, for one, am incensed by all this complacency
Why oppose war only when there's a war?
Why defend the clinics only when they're attacked?
Why are we always reactive?
Let's activate something
Let's fuck shit up
Whatever happened to revolution for the hell of it?
Whatever happened to protesting nothing in particular, just
protesting cause it's Saturday and there's nothing else to do?
:cool:

.... how odd, indeed.

o.9

Everyone knows God runs on Vista.

Wow, thanks, Captain Obvious.

"Please God let X Y get healed" and see if it works. Sounds pretty scientific to me.
Please Intelligenstan, come to Japan by tomorrow.



So if you're not on the tarmac by tomorrow at either Nartia or Kansai, I will have proven that you don't exist.

By your logic.

Intelligenstan, it appears you’re off-line now, but once you’re back perhaps another take on the problem would help. It’s from Steven Pinker’s book How The Mind Works (which Barringtonia in the ‘Do you have to be religious to be moral?’ thread reminded me of).

I’ll write out the relevant parts for your convenience, but a fuller extract can be heard here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE6pwHCr7hY). In the extract, Pinker describes the problem of sentience, and how the inability of science to fully discuss sentience is not an argument for its existence or non-existence:

As far as scientific explanation goes it [sentience] might well not exist. It’s not just that claims about sentience are perversely untestable; it’s that testing them would make no difference to anything anyway... In the study of the mind, sentience floats in its own plane, high above the causal chains of psychology and neuroscience. If we could ever trace all the neuro-computational steps from perception through reasoning and emotion to behaviour, the only thing left missing by the lack of a reasonable theory of sentience would be an understanding of sentience itself.

But saying we have no scientific explanation of sentience is not the same as saying that sentience does not exist at all... the mystery remains a mystery, a topic not for science, but for ethics.

Much the same goes for arguments for the non-existence of a god or gods that appeal to scientific evidence; science is unable to even properly discuss such matters, because it is outside of its framework.

It is much more sensible (and fruitful) to discuss such matters in the fields of philosophy and theology; there at least we can meaningfully discuss the topic at hand.

Because it is a good excercise in rhetoric (as in comunication skills, not mindlessly repeated talking points) and logic. It's like the gym, but where nerds work their neurons and synapses, rather than biceps and pectorals.

Oh, and because he doesn't :)
Power perceived is power achieved.
*bows*

Why is everyone on this board so hellbent on proving that God does/does not exist?

Because it is a good excercise in rhetoric (as in comunication skills, not mindlessly repeated talking points) and logic. It's like the gym, but where nerds work their neurons and synapses, rather than biceps and pectorals.

Oh, and because he doesn't :)

This will clear nothing up but you should have fun while browsing it:
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/feelnikon/discovery/universcale/nano.swf

This will clear nothing up but you should have fun while browsing it:
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/feelnikon/discovery/universcale/nano.swf

Beautiful

This is outrageous! I demand a nonsense option for the poll!

This is outrageous! I demand a nonsense option for the poll!

How about just a sensible one? Although it is nice to vote for LG regardless of the topic ;)

Intelligenstan, it appears you’re off-line now, but once you’re back perhaps another take on the problem would help. It’s from Steven Pinker’s book How The Mind Works (which Barringtonia in the ‘Do you have to be religious to be moral?’ thread reminded me of).

I’ll write out the relevant parts for your convenience, but a fuller extract can be heard here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE6pwHCr7hY). In the extract, Pinker describes the problem of sentience, and how the inability of science to fully discuss sentience is not an argument for its existence or non-existence:

Much the same goes for arguments for the non-existence of a god or gods that appeal to scientific evidence; science is unable to even properly discuss such matters, because it is outside of its framework.

It is much more sensible (and fruitful) to discuss such matters in the fields of philosophy and theology; there at least we can meaningfully discuss the topic at hand.

I feel that sentience is a little different matter than the supernatural, but interesting comparison nonetheless.
The way I currently see it, I think, is that science can investigage into things within this universe. If there are things without it, we (so far at least) don't have tools to investigate those. BUT: we can investigate the effects of those potential extrauniversal entities on the Universe. For example, I think that if a clear breaking of the law of physics occurs in a lab setting, science would either have to reevalute the universality of the laws of physics it presenets, posit new ones, or question the possibility of extrauniversal forces acting upon and affecting on our universe. That's why I feel for example that the prayer experiment is in fact a legitimate one. No, not to prove God's existence, but to prove that prayers do work. If there is in fact an interfering God (not the one discussed in this thread as this thread is meant to deal with the non-intervening God who set up the dominoes and set them off in their course), then his/her/its effects on our world will be part of observable phenomena and thus would in fact apply to science. No?

Please Intelligenstan, come to Japan by tomorrow.



So if you're not on the tarmac by tomorrow at either Nartia or Kansai, I will have proven that you don't exist.

By your logic.

only if they were somehow defined as a being that does your bidding. one of the attributes alleged for god is that he answers prayers, particularly prayers for other people's health. the fact that this isn't actually the case says that that god doesn't exist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7215972.stm

And even more crucially, back at the beginning of time, the Big Bang itself, Einstein's picture of space and time is no longer adequate. We physicists are therefore faced with a deep problem.
If we want to truly understand how, and maybe even why, the Universe began, then we must know what space and time looked like right back at the beginning.
Such a theory, if it exists, would be what is known as a quantum theory of gravity - a theory that supersedes Einstein and works not only in the world of planets, stars and galaxies, but also in the sub-atomic sized world of black holes and the very beginning of the Universe itself.
This quest is the "Holy Grail" of 21st century physics
Just thought i'd add some more information to confuse people with. Interesting stuff.

In other words, order, such as the singularity at the start of the big bang, cannot naturally form, according to our current set of physical laws. It is impossible. Unless you are going to claim that the universe just mysteriously "started," or else that the physical laws did not hold during that era, there is no way you can claim that the Big Bang occurred without some kind of outside intervention, and I do not believe either of those assertions involve any less faith then believing in God.

1. Our current set of physical "laws" are known to have not come into existence until after the Big Bang. (Which, by the way, we can observe.)
2. The 2LoT is A: not what you said, and B: technically wrong. It works on a macro level, but it's completely false on a quantum level.

I like the Fucking Crazy Fundamentalist Proof of God's Existence:

1. Jesus loves you.
2. Black people are OK if they aren't Muslim.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The word "random" is being misapplied. It just means that it is not correlated with anything we know. It does not mean that what came out of the singularity was determined by some massive metaphorical-dice-roll or suchlike random-number-generating process, it is means it was not determined by anything we know. We can say it was determined by what God wanted to happen; that is still "random" in the technical sense, if we have zero knowledge of what God's will is.
For example, shoe size is "random" with respect to income level: meaning, there is no correlation; knowledge about a person's income level provides no information about shoe size. That does not mean shoe size is not determined by some other factor, such as foot size.

The word "random" is being misapplied. It just means that it is not correlated with anything we know. It does not mean that what came out of the singularity was determined by some massive metaphorical-dice-roll or suchlike random-number-generating process, it is means it was not determined by anything we know. We can say it was determined by what God wanted to happen; that is still "random" in the technical sense, if we have zero knowledge of what God's will is.
For example, shoe size is "random" with respect to income level: meaning, there is no correlation; knowledge about a person's income level provides no information about shoe size. That does not mean shoe size is not determined by some other factor, such as foot size.

are you claiming there isn't such a thing as something truly indeterminate?

I am a proponent of the small bang(tm) theory

We don't know.
When an electron is hit by a photon, it might or might not jump to a higher orbital. We can calculate the probabilities, but cannot, by any material observation, predict absolutely which will happen. Perhaps it jumps or does not jump because it "decides" to; or because God decides; or because Cthulhu, Yoggoth, and Zeus democratically vote. Perhaps there really is a giant heavenly Casino Royale where the deities roll trillions of dice every nanosecond to generate random numbers to settle all the quantum outcomes. Perhaps there is no reason at all.
All we can say is, that the outcome is "uncorrelated" with the spatiotemporal distribution of material particles; that is what it means to call it "random".

The big bang theory is just that, truly there is no way to prove or disprove of the theory it is just an idea of how people can scientifically look at the universe. Whether or not there is a god is up to an individual person but the idea of a being that watches over us at all times is as old as human history, your god is nothing more then another man's allah or Jehova, Zeus and the greeks or Titan (maybe...?) and the romans. The pagens elemental gods are one in the same as the spiritual gods of Japan. You cannot say that one is better than the other nor can you say one exist because you believe in him more. What people are doing is running their lifes based on a set a values written as a religion, a form of god should be within ourselves to decide whether to follow the religious values of life or be yourself and build your own values. The big bang theory (coming back to that) would be an idea given to people who run themselves apart from the religious crowd, it gives them something to believe as well.

What people should be focusing the attention on here is whether when the universe was inanimate did anything exist or was it a vast space of nothingness? And if indeed it was nothing how than can one explain the existence of a god? Where would a being come from, or did he just appear? The problem with believing in a god is that the values created by the religion are one's that halt human advancement, we've evolved all this way into creatures dominating this planet and yet we are still concerned about this allpowerful god who watches our mistakes and punishes us with damnation in hell, what then are sin's? Why should our ability to make mistakes be punishable?

There are too many questions to ask and yet answers are scarce, this magic being of a 'god' to me seems like a reason to take control of a population, hence the Islamic regime of Iran which has instilled their religious practices onto the entire people as common law for modern day reference or if your a Christian then go back to when the church ran almost all of Europe's seperate empire's.

Im rambling now but im sure somwhere in the above I made some sort of sense.

Whether one believes in God or not this line of reasoning is fatally flawed.


(1) The big bang singularity is the earliest state of the universe.
(2) The earliest state of the universe is inanimate.
(3) No law governs the big bang singularity and consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate universe.
(4) The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe. (from 1 to 3)
(5) ’[I]f [God] created the earliest state of the universe, then he would have ensured that this state is animate or evolves into animate states of the universe’.
(6) God does not exist. (from 4 and 5)


(1) Cannot be known, nor do we have compelling reason to assume it. In fact, there's a whole school of scientific thought that suggests that the Big Bang is a cyclic event, and that during each cycle all matter in the universe collapses as gravity overtakes energy leading to a Big Bang, and so on.

(2) Cannot be known. for the same reason as (1) can't be known.

(3) While we cannot say if there are any guarantees, it is illogical to assume that 'no law' governs such a singulairity in the first place.

(4) Cannot be shown to hold as it is based on the previous 3 fallacies.

(5) Cannot be proven

(6) Fails for the reasona above.

This, like many similar arguments, is only believeable by those who already believe the conclusion.

1. Our current set of physical "laws" are known to have not come into existence until after the Big Bang. (Which, by the way, we can observe.)
2. The 2LoT is A: not what you said, and B: technically wrong. It works on a macro level, but it's completely false on a quantum level.

1)How Why When What Why? How do we observe it?

2)First it would help if you would state what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is and how my definition is wrong, as otherwise you're giving an argument on faith and popularity, something which cannot be allowed in a rational debate.

Second, while it may be true that it does not work on a quantum level, I do believe that the total sum of all the mass in the universe could be considered a macro level. Further, that if the level to which it holds depends upon the scale of the circumstances you're measuring, then it follows with the notion of the limit that as we approach the size of the entire universe, we likewise approach total adherence to this rule, even in the universes earliest days.

The most important thing you learn from science is that why you know something is far more important then what you know.

Silly atheists.

You can't disprove God.

Silly atheists.

You can't disprove God.

Nor can you prove god...

Although you can apply the "Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." theory to it, and no the bible is not evidence -.-...

The Big bang theory originally was viewed as a creationist theory.

Silly atheists.

You can't disprove God.

Who's trying to do that?

We don't know.
When an electron is hit by a photon, it might or might not jump to a higher orbital. We can calculate the probabilities, but cannot, by any material observation, predict absolutely which will happen. Perhaps it jumps or does not jump because it "decides" to; or because God decides; or because Cthulhu, Yoggoth, and Zeus democratically vote. Perhaps there really is a giant heavenly Casino Royale where the deities roll trillions of dice every nanosecond to generate random numbers to settle all the quantum outcomes. Perhaps there is no reason at all.
All we can say is, that the outcome is "uncorrelated" with the spatiotemporal distribution of material particles; that is what it means to call it "random".

The word "random" is being misapplied. It just means that it is not correlated with anything we know. It does not mean that what came out of the singularity was determined by some massive metaphorical-dice-roll or suchlike random-number-generating process, it is means it was not determined by anything we know. We can say it was determined by what God wanted to happen; that is still "random" in the technical sense, if we have zero knowledge of what God's will is.
For example, shoe size is "random" with respect to income level: meaning, there is no correlation; knowledge about a person's income level provides no information about shoe size. That does not mean shoe size is not determined by some other factor, such as foot size.

I think indeterminate randomness means that it CANNOT be determined, not even by God. Yes, he can see the future and predict what it will become I guess, but without interference, he has no way of producing a singularity that will evolve into this specific universe. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Oh now, you misunderstood me, this wasn't to prove God's inexistence, it was to prove God's existence. And in fact such an experiment was indeed conducted (as Dawkins mentions in God Delusion). It was true random sampling and a large enough number of trials. I actually do think that if all the ones who were prayed for healed and all the ones who weren't prayed for died, and could be repeated, this WOULD in fact show that prayers work.
It was well controlled, each patient's name was given at random to assigned people to pray for him, I think it's just like any other scientific experiment, isn't it?

Actually it wouldn't... IF you would have these results AND the experiment can be repeated over and over again with the same results AND all other parameters are excluded you could conclude that praying helps... Nothing more, nothing less...


Hm, I'm the only one to vote against the Big Bang theory so far. Here's a quick explanation of why the Big Bang theory is flawed.

First, we haven't found any "end" to the universe. We can only hope to find the beginning of the part of the universe we know of. For all we know, there's a massive ring contracting outside our detectable range causing the appearance of expansion.

Second, if all of the mass and energy in the universe is compacted to a single point, the point would be ultra-dense. You have a near-infinite mass in a near-infinitely small point. All the universe's energy would be potential instead of kinetic because of the massive gravitational pull. In order for a single particle to escape, the amount of energy spent would have to be massive. There's nothing to suggest a massive change to kinetic energy in a situation like that.

Third, it's based upon our current understanding of the laws of physics. Given that our understanding of those laws was considerably different 500 years ago, I'm sure we all agree that our understanding of them will be different 500 years from now. I'm willing to bet that they'll be so different that a Big Bang concept would be the equivalent of assuming the world was flat.

(apologies that I won't be able to follow this up for a few days; I'll be on a trip)

in this reply thing = unknown object containing all mass of the universe or something like that...

I hope you know there are three theories about how this would have occured
1) the thing exploded and will always continue to expand
2) the thing exploded, but will at the end stop expending and thats it
3) the thing exploded, expended but will shrink soon...

Theory three donates enough energy for an other blast don't you think? Besides chemical reactions can create a hell of a lot of energy. If by chance some very reactive chemicals were put together the thing will explode in no time... If you don't believe in the forces that might escape during such things, just try to let a block of sodium fall in a bucket of water... Oh, and make sure you don't stand too close...
Besides all of this is only when you assume that all micro environments have to follow the same logic as macro environments, or that gravity existed before the big bang (i do think it was, but it isn't been proved yet, so one can't know...)

About not being capable finding the end well according to the theory the universe expands almost at the speed of light, so we can't catch up with it now can we... and for telescopes, they capture the light send back from somewhere else... The end of the universe would be some kind of an empty space i guess, The entire universe is +/- an empty space so i don't think it would be wrong to assume the end would be +/- the same as the rest of it... And thus can't send back much light. And when that light would be here the distance between earth and the end of the universe would be twice as big as it is now... So we would have seen the history of the middle between earth and the end of the universe...





*misses a part*

In other words, order, such as the singularity at the start of the big bang, cannot naturally form, according to our current set of physical laws. It is impossible. Unless you are going to claim that the universe just mysteriously "started," or else that the physical laws did not hold during that era, there is no way you can claim that the Big Bang occurred without some kind of outside intervention, and I do not believe either of those assertions involve any less faith then believing in God.


It is possible with internal forces as well... Even considering the second law of thermodynamics... You see most people forget it took millions and millions of years to reach what we have now. It would be rather foolish to assume that the current universe would be formed with on bang and thats it. (Lets agree there was a bang for the ease of the discussion) Some mass is going to be pulled together (2 objects will allways attract each other if they are both electrical neutral) and before we know it we have a rock like thing that circles round a star... This might have taken a billion years before it happened, but who cares? The only thing the universe has plenty of is time...



repeated trials, just like any other experiment conducted scientifically. It could be made scientific. What I'm saying is that you get people to say the words outloud: "Please God let X Y get healed" and see if it works. Sounds pretty scientific to me.

You are kidding right? There are numerous parameters that can't be controlled, then how are you going to make a scientific investigation work?

only if they were somehow defined as a being that does your bidding. one of the attributes alleged for god is that he answers prayers, particularly prayers for other people's health. the fact that this isn't actually the case says that that god doesn't exist.
Really? Where the hell did you come up with THAT definition as there is multiple instances in the Bible where prayers were NOT answered for any number of reasons.

Nothing is ever completely random. The outcome of a die roll is dictated by its exact position before being rolled, in what manner is it rolled, the physical properties of the die, the physical properties of anything it bounces off of, you get the idea.

G-d is both infinitely powerful and infinitely smart. He could have set it up so that the "random" event happened the way He wanted.

Nothing is ever completely random. The outcome of a die roll is dictated by its exact position before being rolled, in what manner is it rolled, the physical properties of the die, the physical properties of anything it bounces off of, you get the idea.

G-d is both infinitely powerful and infinitely smart. He could have set it up so that the "random" event happened the way He wanted.

works fine with a dice, but what about picking a card from a deck, or making a PC pick a number? Seems pretty random to me... But i have to agree that most things that look random aren't so. In fact thats one of the things that makes scientist misinterpreted data...

I don't understand why the church can't just let people that aren't involved with them believe whatever they want. Even if the person is involoved in the church, they should be able to believe in the big bang and not be criticized for it. :headbang:

Really? Where the hell did you come up with THAT definition as there is multiple instances in the Bible where prayers were NOT answered for any number of reasons.

Yes, and this is just with the biblical god. Many gods have been worshiped, and still are. Not many of them answer every prayer, or explain their reasons for actions they do and do not take. Some aren't able to answer all prayers.

The idea that you could somehow test for the existence of god(s) is frankly ludicrous. There are too many variables. Which god would you be testing for? How would you know if said god wasn't answering prayers because he/she/it didn't exist, or if he/she/it couldn't, or if he/she/it was insulted to be the subject of an experiment? It just doesn't work.

That's why this whole argument over whether god exists or not is silly. It's impossible to prove either side.

I don't understand why the church can't just let people that aren't involved with them believe whatever they want. Even if the person is involoved in the church, they should be able to believe in the big bang and not be criticized for it. :headbang:

Which church? There are quite a few, you know.

Nothing is ever completely random.

radioactive decay

Really? Where the hell did you come up with THAT definition as there is multiple instances in the Bible where prayers were NOT answered for any number of reasons.

the christian tradition as told in churches, and the beliefs of people.

moreover, the not true-ness of prayer answering means that it is indistinguishable from non-prayer answering. no matter what the reasons offered for god not answering prayers, if he does so as is claimed, there should be some evidence of such. it should make some difference.

I think indeterminate randomness means that it CANNOT be determined, not even by God.
And this is what you don't know. All we can know is that what came out of the singularity is not determined by the natural laws that we do know about, and that is all that is meant by saying it is "random"; whether or not it is determined by something we have no information about, is something that we have no information about.

Nothing is ever completely random. The outcome of a die roll is dictated by its exact position before being rolled, in what manner is it rolled, the physical properties of the die, the physical properties of anything it bounces off of, you get the idea.

G-d is both infinitely powerful and infinitely smart. He could have set it up so that the "random" event happened the way He wanted.
actually, this was random. Physically speaking.
And this is what you don't know. All we can know is that what came out of the singularity is not determined by the natural laws that we do know about, and that is all that is meant by saying it is "random"; whether or not it is determined by something we have no information about, is something that we have no information about.
no, I'm pretty sure that I remember reading that by random, they mean that it could have just as easily came out to something completely different.

Yes, and this is just with the biblical god. Many gods have been worshiped, and still are. Not many of them answer every prayer, or explain their reasons for actions they do and do not take. Some aren't able to answer all prayers.

The idea that you could somehow test for the existence of god(s) is frankly ludicrous. There are too many variables. Which god would you be testing for? How would you know if said god wasn't answering prayers because he/she/it didn't exist, or if he/she/it couldn't, or if he/she/it was insulted to be the subject of an experiment? It just doesn't work.

technically speaking, everything has a similar problem. there are an infinite number of possible explanations for absolutely everything, and we can only rule them out one at a time.

technically speaking, everything has a similar problem. there are an infinite number of possible explanations for absolutely everything, and we can only rule them out one at a time.

The problem is, we have no way of ruling these ones out. None of them can really be tested for.

the christian tradition as told in churches, and the beliefs of people.
Bull. The tradition is that those people with faith, true faith, will have their prayers answered in God's choosing. And in any case:

5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone."

7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
Matthew 4:5-7 (NIV)

Which this kind of experiment would indeed be.

moreover, the not true-ness of prayer answering means that it is indistinguishable from non-prayer answering. no matter what the reasons offered for god not answering prayers, if he does so as is claimed, there should be some evidence of such. it should make some difference.
That makes no sense whatsoever.

(1) The big bang singularity is the earliest state of the universe.
(2) The earliest state of the universe is inanimate.
(3) No law governs the big bang singularity and consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate universe.
(4) The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe. (from 1 to 3)

To which we should add :

(5) ’[I]f [God] created the earliest state of the universe, then he would have ensured that this state is animate or evolves into animate states of the universe’.
(6) God does not exist. (from 4 and 5)
Points 3 and 5 are flawed.

First, there may well be a law that governs the big bang singularity. We simply don't know what it is. Also, even if there is no law, that doesn't mean god can't predict the outcome. In addition, even if god can't predict the outcome, god can influence the outcome.

Second, why do you insist that god would have ensured the future animation of the universe? By doing so you're assuming both that god wanted the universe to be animate, and that god was unwilling to interfere in the universe later to make it animate.

This is a terrible argument.

Points 3 and 5 are flawed.

First, there may well be a law that governs the big bang singularity. We simply don't know what it is. Also, even if there is no law, that doesn't mean god can't predict the outcome. In addition, even if god can't predict the outcome, god can influence the outcome.

Right, the assumption is that it is a non-intervening God we are talking about, only the one that set things in motion. Also he could have known what would have come out in the future. The question is had he planned it purposefully when say 'creating' the singularity?

Second, why do you insist that god would have ensured the future animation of the universe? By doing so you're assuming both that god wanted the universe to be animate, and that god was unwilling to interfere in the universe later to make it animate.

This is a terrible argument.
Because those are the assumptions that are later refuted. From this proof if you may, follows that God could not have ensured the future animation of the universe except for with further intervention. And that's the point I'm trying to get to. If someone believes that God intervenes in the universe, then that's a completely different matter.

or making a PC pick a number?

That's pretty much the complete opposite of random. It determines the number through something called a seed. If you know the seed and the code, you can determine what number will come up.

Right, the assumption is that it is a non-intervening God we are talking about, only the one that set things in motion.
You might have mentioned that. Alos, by assuming that, you're making your proof uselessly narrow.
Also he could have known what would have come out in the future.
Exactly. God could have created the universe several times until he got one that would become animate.
The question is had he planned it purposefully when say 'creating' the singularity?
Does it matter?
Because those are the assumptions that are later refuted. From this proof if you may, follows that God could not have ensured the future animation of the universe except for with further intervention.
But that's only relevant if you assume that god intended future animation.
And that's the point I'm trying to get to. If someone believes that God intervenes in the universe, then that's a completely different matter.
And, combined with everything else I've mentioned, makes this a very narrow proof.

1)How Why When What Why? How do we observe it?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence) has a decent summary. It's rather technical stuff, though.

2)First it would help if you would state what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is and how my definition is wrong, as otherwise you're giving an argument on faith and popularity, something which cannot be allowed in a rational debate.


The 2LoT states that, in a closed system, entropy cannot decrease. However, as the universe is a closed system and matter/antimatter pairs will form spontaneously out of nothing, the 2LoT is wrong.

The 2LoT states that, in a closed system, entropy cannot decrease.
Actually, 2LoT states that, in a closed system, entropy will increase. It's the First Law that says entropy can't decrease.

You might have mentioned that. Alos, by assuming that, you're making your proof uselessly narrow.

Exactly. God could have created the universe several times until he got one that would become animate.

Does it matter?

But that's only relevant if you assume that god intended future animation.

And, combined with everything else I've mentioned, makes this a very narrow proof.

Yes, it is narrow, but then you must assume that God either intervened at some point since the Big Bang or didn't intend for humans to exist. And if he intervened in some way, it follows that if we can trace things back to the Big Bang, we will see some kind of manipulation of nature, or breaking of the rules of physics at some point or another, causing the effect of the intervention (say like miracles for example), but that's a different matter.

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n198/Sir_Gilead/BigBang-1.jpg

Found this humorous. Now discuss ...

no, I'm pretty sure that I remember reading that by random, they mean that it could have just as easily came out to something completely different.
WE KNOW OF NO REASON why it couldn't have come out one way rather than another. We don't know what we don't know.

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n198/Sir_Gilead/BigBang-1.jpg

Found this humorous. Now discuss ...

It's stupid because the Big Bang Theory doesn't say that nothing exploded. It says that matter was compressed into an extremely small area and then exploded outwards.

Yes, it is narrow, but then you must assume that God either intervened at some point since the Big Bang or didn't intend for humans to exist. And if he intervened in some way, it follows that if we can trace things back to the Big Bang, we will see some kind of manipulation of nature, or breaking of the rules of physics at some point or another, causing the effect of the intervention (say like miracles for example), but that's a different matter.

How exactly would science ever know if there was a break in the rules of physics?

Bull. The tradition is that those people with faith, true faith, will have their prayers answered in God's choosing.

in which case we should see some sort of positive correlation between 'true faith' and answered prayers. but we don't. the prayers of those with true faith are answered exactly as often as those that only pray for selfish reasons. shit, probably less often, as they would tend to pray for shit like world peace.

It's stupid because the Big Bang Theory doesn't say that nothing exploded. It says that matter was compressed into an extremely small area and then exploded outwards.

Matter which came from nothing.

The problem is, we have no way of ruling these ones out. None of them can really be tested for.

sure they can. biblical literalism god has been ruled out, for example.

in which case we should see some sort of positive correlation between 'true faith' and answered prayers. but we don't. the prayers of those with true faith are answered exactly as often as those that only pray for selfish reasons. shit, probably less often, as they would tend to pray for shit like world peace.

How do you know who has and who hasn't got true faith? That would be pretty much impossible to measure.

Matter which came from nothing.
We do not know any such thing. WE DON'T KNOW if the matter came from nothing, or from a previous universe, or from God, or from Cthulhu.

How do you know who has and who hasn't got true faith? That would be pretty much impossible to measure.

if they look like they do and act like they do, then they do. evidence always trumps intentional obscured lacks of evidence.

By material observation. Presuming that there is no other way to "know" anything is begging the question, in this context.

no, as an ontological feature of reality. there is no (prior) fact of the matter about numerous either inherently uncertain or indeterminate features of reality.

WE KNOW OF NO REASON why it couldn't have come out one way rather than another. We don't know what we don't know.
We do know that it is impossible to know what would have come out. Similarly, I think, it has been proven that it is impossible to know both the location and the speed(is that right?) of an electron?
How exactly would science ever know if there was a break in the rules of physics?
observable evidence

observable evidence

Ok. How does science interpret observable evidence?

We do know that it is impossible to know what would have come out.

No, you don't know what you don't know.
Similarly, I think, it has been proven that it is impossible to know both the location and the speed(is that right?) of an electron?
By material observation. Presuming that there is no other way to "know" anything is begging the question, in this context.

The way I currently see it, I think, is that science can investigage into things within this universe. If there are things without it, we (so far at least) don't have tools to investigate those.
Mostly fine so far, although we must recognise there are plenty of things within the universe that are impossible to investigate scientifically; I've already mentioned that it's completely futile to try and scientifically investigate the amount of love one holds for a family member, for example.

BUT: we can investigate the effects of those potential extrauniversal entities on the Universe.
There's a massive logical and practical problem here:

If science, as you admit, can only investigate those things within the universe, then how is it at all possible to deal with supernatural entities? Take your example of testing the effect of prayer on sick individuals. If I want to conduct a truly scientific test, then I'd have to clear up any variables, and have sufficient control cases.

Now, if we just focus on Christian prayer for the moment, one of the variables I've got to pin down is God; a necessarily supernatural being! If you show me the results of the test and argue that they prove/disprove the power of prayer, I can simply turn around and ask you to show me how the test was scientific. Something which you simply can't demonstrate.

You might respond (indeed, you already have) by claiming that we can still test prayer in laboratory conditions, but that's just plain wrong; the laboratory conditions fail to account for massive variables. And as these variables are supposedly supernatural, no necessarily natural-based scientific method is able to achieve such conditions.

For example, I think that if a clear breaking of the law of physics occurs in a lab setting, science would either have to reevalute the universality of the laws of physics it presenets, posit new ones, or question the possibility of extrauniversal forces acting upon and affecting on our universe.
The first and second options are the only ones open to the scientist. By the very nature of the scientific method, the third option is unscientific, and thus can't be included in a scientific theory.

If there is in fact an interfering God (not the one discussed in this thread as this thread is meant to deal with the non-intervening God who set up the dominoes and set them off in their course), then his/her/its effects on our world will be part of observable phenomena and thus would in fact apply to science. No?
No, because we could never attribute any phenomena to a supernatural entity without first abandoning the scientific method.

We could discuss it in the frameworks of theology and philosophy, for example, because these frameworks allow one to involve supernatural entities.

if they look like they do and act like they do, then they do. evidence always trumps intentional obscured lacks of evidence.
:rolleyes: And since truth faith is determined by God that must mean YOU are God since you can tell me who has true faith.

:rolleyes: And since truth faith is determined by God that must mean YOU are God since you can tell me who has true faith.

god determines nothing since god doesn't exist. regardless, if it means anything at all, true faith is definable in terms of beliefs and actions.

I'm sorry but I disagree. You mention these confounding variables. These can be eliminated just like any other scientific experiment.
You can eliminate the variable of an all-powerful entity outside of space-time, who can, at whim, change and ignore the scientific laws of the universe?

Wow.

Mostly fine so far, although we must recognise there are plenty of things within the universe that are impossible to investigate scientifically; I've already mentioned that it's completely futile to try and scientifically investigate the amount of love one holds for a family member, for example.


There's a massive logical and practical problem here:

If science, as you admit, can only investigate those things within the universe, then how is it at all possible to deal with supernatural entities? Take your example of testing the effect of prayer on sick individuals. If I want to conduct a truly scientific test, then I'd have to clear up any variables, and have sufficient control cases.

Now, if we just focus on Christian prayer for the moment, one of the variables I've got to pin down is God; a necessarily supernatural being! If you show me the results of the test and argue that they prove/disprove the power of prayer, I can simply turn around and ask you to show me how the test was scientific. Something which you simply can't demonstrate.

You might respond (indeed, you already have) by claiming that we can still test prayer in laboratory conditions, but that's just plain wrong; the laboratory conditions fail to account for massive variables. And as these variables are supposedly supernatural, no necessarily natural-based scientific method is able to achieve such conditions.


The first and second options are the only ones open to the scientist. By the very nature of the scientific method, the third option is unscientific, and thus can't be included in a scientific theory.


No, because we could never attribute any phenomena to a supernatural entity without first abandoning the scientific method.

We could discuss it in the frameworks of theology and philosophy, for example, because these frameworks allow one to involve supernatural entities.

I'm sorry but I disagree. You mention these confounding variables. These can be eliminated just like any other scientific experiment. I do think that if a supernatural entity exists and interferes in an observable manner with this universe, then it can be scientific.

An argument against the existence of a God who purposefully created the Universe with an intention of it supporting life is presented by Quentin Smith:

Smith expresses his argument as such :

(1) The big bang singularity is the earliest state of the universe.
(2) The earliest state of the universe is inanimate.
(3) No law governs the big bang singularity and consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate universe.
(4) The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe. (from 1 to 3)

To which we should add :

(5) ’[I]f [God] created the earliest state of the universe, then he would have ensured that this state is animate or evolves into animate states of the universe’.
(6) God does not exist. (from 4 and 5)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/big_bang_cosmological_argument/


From what I understand, what would have come out of the singularity was random, and thus God could have not created it with a prior intention of it turning into the current Universe the way it is. So:
If the Big Bang model is correct, does this mean God is incompatible with science?
Is this a 'proof' for God's nonexistence if the Big Bang Theory is accepted?

His logic is stupid.

It's like saying that no one could have built your TV because it's earliest state is 'off,' and no one would have created a TV whose nature is not guaranteed to result in it being 'on.' Therefore the existence of the off switch on the TV disproves it's invention.

If anything he's making the theist's case for them. The universe by its nature is extremely unlikely to produce intelligent beings. Not just unlikely to allow the chemicals of the primeval soup to create life that will then evolve intelligence, but the odds of gravity, heat, and time themselves existing was exceedingly remote. Yet it all worked out. Sublime coincidence, or divine providence?

You can eliminate the variable of an all-powerful entity outside of space-time, who can, at whim, change and ignore the scientific laws of the universe?

Wow.

I think the irony here is that one would have to be God to control for that particular variable.

I think the irony here is that one would have to be God to control for that particular variable.
I'll be careful what I say to Intelligenstan from now on then.

He might be testing our faith in Him... :p

I'm sorry but I disagree. You mention these confounding variables. These can be eliminated just like any other scientific experiment. I do think that if a supernatural entity exists and interferes in an observable manner with this universe, then it can be scientific.

There is a word for an experiment designed to prove the existence of a being.

A trap.

The thing of it is, you can only use a trap to prove the existence of a creature that's dumb enough to fall for your trap. So all scientific experiments designed to prove the intervention of God are attempting to demonstrate the existence of a supremely intelligent, all knowing being that's dumb enough to get caught by a trick advertised in periodicals.

I'm sorry but I disagree. You mention these confounding variables. These can be eliminated just like any other scientific experiment. I do think that if a supernatural entity exists and interferes in an observable manner with this universe, then it can be scientific.

How? How can you control these variables, oh wise one?

The fact is, with a being you don't know exists or not, you don't know the nature of it either. It could ignore any scientific laws it feels like, possibly. Or possibly just some of them.

You don't even know which god to test for.

god determines nothing since god doesn't exist. regardless, if it means anything at all, true faith is definable in terms of beliefs and actions.

Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence.

There is no evidence for (a) god(s). However, it is impossible to prove there is not, as any ideas about the nature of something you don't know exists or not is pure conjecture. There is no way to test for the presence of god, no way to prove anything, which is why this stupid argument keeps going in circles.

Matter which came from nothing.

Says you.

On the other hand...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence.

sure it does, provided it is a real absence of evidence. how else would you attempt to demonstrate that something didn't exist?

god determines nothing since god doesn't exist. regardless, if it means anything at all, true faith is definable in terms of beliefs and actions.
And you're going to test a belief how now? Perhaps after that you can then give me a precise definition of love. Furthermore, how do you measure intent inherent with the action? Please tell me as the courts would love to know that, it would make trials where measuring intent to kill be so much easier.

And how do you know they're not lying?

God, there's so many variables that it is next to impossible to get at. It's why the fuzzy sciences, such as sociology or poli-sci don't pretend at being quantifiable on the same level as the hard sciences.

sure it does, provided it is a real absence of evidence. how else would you attempt to demonstrate that something didn't exist?
Because science can never prove a negative in the first place.

Because science can never prove a negative in the first place.

proof is unnecessary

I am a proponent of the small bang(tm) theory

<.<
>.>
What've you heard?
*sobs*

Silly atheists.

You can't disprove God.

Silly one-trick ponies.

You can't show anything worth arguing about, indicating low/nonexistent stamina.

sure it does, provided it is a real absence of evidence. how else would you attempt to demonstrate that something didn't exist?

It's a futile exercise when the something, or somethings you're trying to demonstrate doesn't exist can supposedly defy all the laws of the universe at will, or who exists only a spiritual form, or what have you. It's in the very nature of the concept of god(s).

An argument against the existence of a God
...

Another argument, this time against mixing god(s) and physics.

1.The Department of Physics at the University is distinct and well-separated from the Department of Theology.

That's pretty much the complete opposite of random. It determines the number through something called a seed. If you know the seed and the code, you can determine what number will come up.

Interesting... I must admit that i don't know that much of programming so i really thought it was random. :)


How exactly would science ever know if there was a break in the rules of physics?

Interesting question, i guess we couldn't know that since we might be observing a rare or yet unknown physical process...


We do know that it is impossible to know what would have come out. Similarly, I think, it has been proven that it is impossible to know both the location and the speed(is that right?) of an electron?

observable evidence

Actually we can not know the exact location and momentum of any element that surrounds us. But since the error on large object is very small when comparing there actual place/speed one can easily ignore it...
It is called the uncertainly principle of Heisenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)


Now, if we just focus on Christian prayer for the moment, one of the variables I've got to pin down is God; a necessarily supernatural being! If you show me the results of the test and argue that they prove/disprove the power of prayer, I can simply turn around and ask you to show me how the test was scientific. Something which you simply can't demonstrate.

To be truly a scientific experiment one should be capable to eliminate the thing that causes the difference as well and see if there is still a difference or not. In the case with the praying people and the sick person that means that everyone should remain praying, but you would have to convince (g/G)od for a while to not answer the pray... Pretty hard if you ask me ;)

In any other experiment thats rather easy to take quite a stupid example: if i drop a burning cigarette in a propane tank it will explode. I can argue that the cigarette is the cause of the explosion, but i can also argue that the burning cigarette is the problem. To test that i simply would have to drop a not burning cigarette into a propane tank on the same conditions.
Silly? Easy? Of course it is, but now try it on things you can't see with the bare eye like proteins... Believe me thats quite a challenge ;)


I'm sorry but I disagree. You mention these confounding variables. These can be eliminated just like any other scientific experiment. I do think that if a supernatural entity exists and interferes in an observable manner with this universe, then it can be scientific.

see previous comment...


sure it does, provided it is a real absence of evidence. how else would you attempt to demonstrate that something didn't exist?

actually it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist... First of all how can you reasonably think that you can look everywhere at once? Since it might be at the place you are currently not looking. Secondly how do you know how the thing you search for looks like? Since your not sure if it exist, thus obviously you have never seen it before... It might be so that the thing described as God is the rock you putted your tent on to search for it...
You can however test it when you actually have an assay that controls if something is or isn't there. And at this stage i don't think anyone has a good assay to prove if (g/G)od is present somewhere...



God, there's so many variables that it is next to impossible to get at. It's why the fuzzy sciences, such as sociology or poli-sci don't pretend at being quantifiable on the same level as the hard sciences.

Personally i don't see sociology etc. not as science at all for the same reason ;)

Silly atheists.

You can't disprove God.
Lol, nice religious hucksterism!

'Come into my used car lot, come on what have you got to loose, I promise their not rusty!!11'

Which person shows more moral caliber, someone would blindly bend the knee because some bloke called Pascal said it was a good bet some hundred years ago, or the person who who said that the evidence supporting the existence of said God was so non-existent that it's not worth wasting your life with some bronze-age Judean myth.

proof is unnecessary
Ah! So we're just gonna go with what you BELIEVE then.

Thread's over everyone, Free Soviet's admitted that he's not using any proof to back up what he's saying.

As the pig said, "Th-th-th-that's all folks!"

Ah! So we're just gonna go with what you BELIEVE then.

Prove anything.

...

Another argument, this time against mixing god(s) and physics.

1.The Department of Physics at the University is distinct and well-separated from the Department of Theology.

Indeed.

An argument against the existence of a God who purposefully created the Universe with an intention of it supporting life is presented by Quentin Smith:

Smith expresses his argument as such :

(1) The big bang singularity is the earliest state of the universe.
(2) The earliest state of the universe is inanimate.
(3) No law governs the big bang singularity and consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate universe.
(4) The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe. (from 1 to 3)

To which we should add :

(5) ’[I]f [God] created the earliest state of the universe, then he would have ensured that this state is animate or evolves into animate states of the universe’.
(6) God does not exist. (from 4 and 5)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/big_bang_cosmological_argument/


From what I understand, what would have come out of the singularity was random, and thus God could have not created it with a prior intention of it turning into the current Universe the way it is. So:
If the Big Bang model is correct, does this mean God is incompatible with science?
Is this a 'proof' for God's nonexistence if the Big Bang Theory is accepted?

If your goal was to prove that Intelligent Design has no scientific merit, you've done a good job. If your goal was to disprove the existence of God (or any god, for that matter) then you haven't done so. I ask you- how do you assert that God isn't intervening? Remember, they do say "God works in mysterious ways"...

Those prayers from those people maybe.

It would do nothing to prove or disprove the existence of god.

For one, perhaps a god only responds to certain prayers, for reasons that are incomprehensible to us. Perhaps it depends on the people who need to be healed, perhaps it depends on the people doing the praying, and whether they actually believe. It also depends on what god can actually do. Not all gods that people believe in are omnipotent, you know. Mine isn't. Get out of the Judeo-Christian box.

Not only that, but the entire proof is always going to rest on straws. Since you can't actually physically see anything travel from the person praying to the person receiving the prayer, all the experiment needs is one counter-example and the whole premise falls apart. If the idea is "certain words and actions produce certain results" and in one instance it didn't, you've got some explaining to do.

Just an argument to throw out there:

Assuming God or gods created the universe, would they not be outside of the universe? For example, if I created a RP world, I am in effect the god of the universe. I give the universe laws and rules, which I, being the creator (and existing, at first, outside of the universe) do not have to follow. Therefore, could it not be possible that both God and science coexist without being mutually exclusive.

Another philosophical point to add on: so long as someone imagines that a god or gods exist, they can seen to have actions (on at least that said person) and therefore exist.

I personally dislike atheism and unquestioning theism, I feel that so long as we cannot fully explain the mysteries of conscious, and especially, self-consciousness, that we cannot absolutely rule out or rule in a divine figure. I also feel that should one be an atheist, one should encourage theism, for it creates a system of supernatural consequence, and therefore helps to maintain order and law in our society.

You know, I like this example the best. A+ for that.

Why is everyone on this board so hellbent on proving that God does/does not exist?

Probably because religious institutions have (and continue to have) a long history of mistreatment of humans, so any way to invalidate them can be construed as a way to "fight back". Never mind that it's still humans who enacted all those orders...

The big bang theory is just that, truly there is no way to prove or disprove of the theory it is just an idea of how people can scientifically look at the universe. Whether or not there is a god is up to an individual person but the idea of a being that watches over us at all times is as old as human history, your god is nothing more then another man's allah or Jehova, Zeus and the greeks or Titan (maybe...?) and the romans. The pagens elemental gods are one in the same as the spiritual gods of Japan. You cannot say that one is better than the other nor can you say one exist because you believe in him more. What people are doing is running their lifes based on a set a values written as a religion, a form of god should be within ourselves to decide whether to follow the religious values of life or be yourself and build your own values. The big bang theory (coming back to that) would be an idea given to people who run themselves apart from the religious crowd, it gives them something to believe as well.

What people should be focusing the attention on here is whether when the universe was inanimate did anything exist or was it a vast space of nothingness? And if indeed it was nothing how than can one explain the existence of a god? Where would a being come from, or did he just appear? The problem with believing in a god is that the values created by the religion are one's that halt human advancement, we've evolved all this way into creatures dominating this planet and yet we are still concerned about this allpowerful god who watches our mistakes and punishes us with damnation in hell, what then are sin's? Why should our ability to make mistakes be punishable?

There are too many questions to ask and yet answers are scarce, this magic being of a 'god' to me seems like a reason to take control of a population, hence the Islamic regime of Iran which has instilled their religious practices onto the entire people as common law for modern day reference or if your a Christian then go back to when the church ran almost all of Europe's seperate empire's.

Im rambling now but im sure somwhere in the above I made some sort of sense.

So your argument is that the Big Bang Theory is as much a "faith" as religion is? With all due respect, that statement shows a huge misunderstanding of how science works, since scientists require observable evidence before any assertion can be made. "Blind faith" never once enters the equation.

I also fail to understand how humans have used deities is proof of their non-existence. So Allah was invoked as a reason for the 9/11 hijackers to slam planes into the World Trade Centre and Jesus was used as an excuse to massacre the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1099...so what? It's still humans who committed those actions and came up with their own excuse- there's nothing that precludes the possibility that their interpretation was just flat-out wrong. Misuse of God, while unfortunate, is not proof of atheism.

I think the irony here is that one would have to be God to control for that particular variable.

Good point.

sure it does, provided it is a real absence of evidence. how else would you attempt to demonstrate that something didn't exist?

It's easy- with actual evidence. I can show that The Simpsons do not exist- I mean, we have testimony from Matt Groening saying that he created them, we know where he creates them, we've never found any family that exactly matches the Simpsons in appearance, the location and environs of Springfield have been changed so many times during the show's run that it is impossible to pinpoint any actual location in the world and the footage of the show is demonstrably cartoonish as to suggest that it's not live film but an actual drawing. Thus, the evidence clearly shows that The Simpsons are the fabrication of someone else and thus not an actual, physical, entity.

Now, try finding this evidence for the supernatural- it just doesn't exist. First, we haven't identified what a deity would look like, so we don't know what we're testing. Second of all, not only does the supernatural operate on a plane above where we can physically observe, the realm actually has control to affect what we can physically observe, so our natural rules cannot apply to the supernatural. Thus, we just aren't able to test its existence- hence why we can't say scientifically one way or another that a deity does truly exist (or not exist).

Prove anything.
Ah, but Free Soviets didn't say PROVE, he said PROOF was not needed.

He apparently doesn't feel the need for evidence for his statements... he's taking it on faith in other words.

Interesting question, i guess we couldn't know that since we might be observing a rare or yet unknown physical process...

Bingo! When science looks at anomalous occurrences, its basic assumption tends to be that there is a generalizable natural law determining that occurrence, and that it's just not clear what that law is yet. Or an anomaly is simply written off as an experimental error.

Even if science did find evidence of God interfering in the laws of physics, science would simply call it something else. Hell, science may have already found evidence of God's interference in the universe, and has simply assumed that the phenomena were natural in origin and governed by natural laws.

Ah, but Free Soviets didn't say PROVE, he said PROOF was not needed.

He apparently doesn't feel the need for evidence for his statements... he's taking it on faith in other words.

Or he could just be operating based on statistical probability after analyzing the evidence available. Proof is a much harder thing to get than that, and much less common.

Good point.

Thank you. I try to have those occasionally. :)

As has probably been mentioned already, there are plenty of actual scientific theories which contradict assumptions 1-4.

Maybe god exists where the braines are?

I'm dubious about point 3. That we do not know of such laws is not the same as 'there are no laws' It's a massive assumption.

If your goal was to prove that Intelligent Design has no scientific merit, you've done a good job. If your goal was to disprove the existence of God (or any god, for that matter) then you haven't done so. I ask you- how do you assert that God isn't intervening? Remember, they do say "God works in mysterious ways"...


Right, you are completely correct. This only applies to the non-intervening God that some people believe in. Namely, many scientists...


Not only that, but the entire proof is always going to rest on straws. Since you can't actually physically see anything travel from the person praying to the person receiving the prayer, all the experiment needs is one counter-example and the whole premise falls apart. If the idea is "certain words and actions produce certain results" and in one instance it didn't, you've got some explaining to do.


still disagree. I thnk this is a valid experiment to prove if prayers work.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence) has a decent summary. It's rather technical stuff, though.

Thank you, although I cannot seem to find the evidence for the physical laws being violated. If anything, it seems to state that they operated well enough to be able to be used to predict the concentrations of several small isotopes in relative comparison with the universe. I can find the evidence for the Big Bang, however.

The 2LoT states that, in a closed system, entropy cannot decrease. However, as the universe is a closed system and matter/antimatter pairs will form spontaneously out of nothing, the 2LoT is wrong.

Would that actually decrease entropy? I don't see how that would create ordered structures or order it's surrounding. If anything it would create further disorder by reacting with nearby matter and antimatter and distributing heat from other nearby particles. Also, the point about something tending towards a limit remains, in this case total compliance as the size of the system approaches the universe. The idea being that those matter-antimatter pairs have so little effect that they are like the +1 in the equation x+1/x as x goes to infinity, as when we are talking the big bang we are talking a colossal number of particles already somewhat independent but compressed against incredible electromagnetic force.

Ah, but Free Soviets didn't say PROVE, he said PROOF was not needed.

He apparently doesn't feel the need for evidence for his statements... he's taking it on faith in other words.

what distinction are you drawing between 'proof' and 'prove'?
and proof is quite a bit stronger than evidence. in fact, you'll note that i have specifically made an evidential claim in the post you replied to.

we've never found any family that exactly matches the Simpsons in appearance

i thought you were claiming that absence of evidence isn't evidence? this is clearly and unambiguously a claim that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

a purposeful God contradicts itself. I like the theory that the universe is the result of the continual process of God playing with shimself. (no, I did not make that up) the big bang was...er...<_<
>_>

I don't like the poll options: I'd consider the Big Bang to be evidence against a purposeful Creator in the Abrahamic tradition, but it's not conclusive and I don't think the quoted argument is terribly good.

How exactly would science ever know if there was a break in the rules of physics?
Especially since you'd only be looking for that in the case where god intervened, and if god intervened then god could have intervened again to eliminate the evidence of his intervention.

still disagree. I thnk this is a valid experiment to prove if prayers work.
You keep on saying this, apparently ignoring the massive problem with this supposedly ‘valid’ experiment:

How do you remove the variable of God?

Unless you can show how your experiment cannot be influenced by a supernatural entity supposedly capable of altering or ignoring every physical law we hold dear (a logical impossibility in a test involving alleged contact with such an entity), your argument falls flat on its face.

How exactly would science ever know if there was a break in the rules of physics?

And even supposing we could know when a law had been broken how would we know which one it was?

Suppose we were measuring the weight of a rock with a spring-based Newtonmeter (i.e. one where the object is suspended from a spring and the stretch is measured) and it suddenly jumped from a steady 10N, to 50N, and then back to 10N after a few seconds.

Assuming that the change only affected the experiment and not the rest of the world, how would we know which law had been changed? Maybe gravity got stronger in a very concentrated area, maybe Hooke's Law (which governs the behaviour of stretched objects) changed, maybe gravity got weaker but a change to Hooke's Law outbalanced it. We'd have no way of knowing.

God is the only logical explanation for the creation of the universe. How else would all the matter for the big bang get here?

God is the only logical explanation for the creation of the universe. How else would all the matter for the big bang get here?

UPS. :)

Right, you are completely correct. This only applies to the non-intervening God that some people believe in. Namely, many scientists...

It's still not proof of non-intervention. It's proof that intervention isn't the only answer but it's still not proof of non-intervention- again, "God works in mysterious ways", so how can you even quantify what "intervention" would look like?

still disagree. I thnk this is a valid experiment to prove if prayers work.

You might be able to say "prayers have an effect". It's not the same as "prayers work".

If 100% of the prayers work, you'd be able to say definitively that prayers work. If even 0.000000000000000000001% of the prayers do not work, you have to figure out why they didn't work in those instances. Since nothing physical occurs during the connection established between the patient and the person praying during prayer, all you have to work with are the abstract workings of words and that's impossible to measure. Thus, all you can prove is that words trigger reactions, but if those reactions don't occur, you've got nothing to show why- except to say that prayers don't definitively work 100% of the time.

i thought you were claiming that absence of evidence isn't evidence? this is clearly and unambiguously a claim that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

No, I used it as *part* of the case- i.e., we haven't shown existence and we have evidence of non-existence, so non-existence is the more reasonable conclusion. All you've done is prove existence hasn't been shown- the actual hard evidence of non-existence is lacking.

No, I used it as *part* of the case- i.e., we haven't shown existence and we have evidence of non-existence, so non-existence is the more reasonable conclusion. All you've done is prove existence hasn't been shown- the actual hard evidence of non-existence is lacking.

if an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, then it fundamentally could not be used as part of anything. that's what words mean.

but it is very good evidence in this case, and you rightly used it as such. most the other stuff you held up as evidence was also "we haven't ever seen x", as well. the one that was a positive statement - we know that somebody claims to have created them - could be undermined simply by us discovering a family upon whom the simpsons are obviously based. matt groening's claims to the contrary wouldn't matter. it quite literally is the absence of any evidence for such a family, such a location, etc, that makes it the case that we believe such doesn't exist.

You keep on saying this, apparently ignoring the massive problem with this supposedly ‘valid’ experiment:

How do you remove the variable of God?

Unless you can show how your experiment cannot be influenced by a supernatural entity supposedly capable of altering or ignoring every physical law we hold dear (a logical impossibility in a test involving alleged contact with such an entity), your argument falls flat on its face.
God doesn't fit in to the equation. The experiment would prove that prayers work. How would then be the unanswerable question, what I'm trying to get at is that the effects of the supernatural (if it exists) absolutely apply to science.
It's still not proof of non-intervention. It's proof that intervention isn't the only answer but it's still not proof of non-intervention- again, "God works in mysterious ways", so how can you even quantify what "intervention" would look like?

You might be able to say "prayers have an effect". It's not the same as "prayers work".

If 100% of the prayers work, you'd be able to say definitively that prayers work. If even 0.000000000000000000001% of the prayers do not work, you have to figure out why they didn't work in those instances. Since nothing physical occurs during the connection established between the patient and the person praying during prayer, all you have to work with are the abstract workings of words and that's impossible to measure. Thus, all you can prove is that words trigger reactions, but if those reactions don't occur, you've got nothing to show why- except to say that prayers don't definitively work 100% of the time.

Right, it's not proof of non-intervention, it's an attempted disproof that a non-intervening purposefull God is compatible with the Big Bang.
Ok, sorry, prayers have an effect. Or you could say the majority of prayers have an effect. Right, what this is getting at is, again, the EFFECTS of the hypothetical supernatural within the natural world.

Bingo! When science looks at anomalous occurrences, its basic assumption tends to be that there is a generalizable natural law determining that occurrence, and that it's just not clear what that law is yet. Or an anomaly is simply written off as an experimental error.

Even if science did find evidence of God interfering in the laws of physics, science would simply call it something else. Hell, science may have already found evidence of God's interference in the universe, and has simply assumed that the phenomena were natural in origin and governed by natural laws.


Just a second though, once such a thing is found, the theory will be reshaped, and tested over and over again to see if it wasn't a testing error in the first experiment.

About your second assumption, well if you do believe that God created the universe you would believe that he/she/it created the laws of physics as well, making your point of God already being proved for useless...
Personally i do believe that there is one or more (g/G)od(s) that created the universe, but that doesn't mean i believe that he/she/it/they interact with everything that occurs here...



Right, you are completely correct. This only applies to the non-intervening God that some people believe in. Namely, many scientists...

still disagree. I thnk this is a valid experiment to prove if prayers work.

You might think as long as you want, but that won't make it true... The experiment would GAIN scientific meaning once you can rule out that its the pray the whole pray and nothing but the pray that makes it happen. That means that you would have to pray a smaller part of the pray to see if the effect is only because a part of it. One could argue that (s)he would need to test the opposite as well... Well go nuts and invent a longer pray too...

but the tricky part is the "nothing but the pray" part since you assume that there is some kind of a creature (god) that answers it. To test it you would need to know if there is a God, and if there is, have to ask him/her/it/them to stop granting the prayers for a while...

So either your experiment to determine if a pray works or not might be a bit more tricky then you assumed doesn't it ;)



Would that actually decrease entropy? I don't see how that would create ordered structures or order it's surrounding. If anything it would create further disorder by reacting with nearby matter and antimatter and distributing heat from other nearby particles. Also, the point about something tending towards a limit remains, in this case total compliance as the size of the system approaches the universe. The idea being that those matter-antimatter pairs have so little effect that they are like the +1 in the equation x+1/x as x goes to infinity, as when we are talking the big bang we are talking a colossal number of particles already somewhat independent but compressed against incredible electromagnetic force.


actually if you would assume that everything came out of nowhere you need to have as much antimatter as you have matter to balance the total weight out... Where that antimatter might be you ask? Don't know that unfortunately, else i would be famous by now ;)



And even supposing we could know when a law had been broken how would we know which one it was?

Suppose we were measuring the weight of a rock with a spring-based Newtonmeter (i.e. one where the object is suspended from a spring and the stretch is measured) and it suddenly jumped from a steady 10N, to 50N, and then back to 10N after a few seconds.

Assuming that the change only affected the experiment and not the rest of the world, how would we know which law had been changed? Maybe gravity got stronger in a very concentrated area, maybe Hooke's Law (which governs the behaviour of stretched objects) changed, maybe gravity got weaker but a change to Hooke's Law outbalanced it. We'd have no way of knowing.

or someone is playing a trick with us and turned on a very powerful magnet to affect the spring that much :P (sorry couldn't resist :s)



God is the only logical explanation for the creation of the universe. How else would all the matter for the big bang get here?

Hope you like abstract theories (not as abstract as yours though ;)) One is capable creating matter with a simple wave. I'll spare you the technical details since it is mostly quantummechanics, and a small part radiochemistry. Rather long and to be honest i find it rather boring as well...
The point is that once you have a wave with lets say 1022 KeV witch reacts with something with a higher gravity it will change itself to two particles one electron (very small mass (9.109 382 15(45) × 10–31 kg to be precise) and 1 negative electrical charge) and one positron. Wikipedia says it is the same mass as a electron, but it has actually a negative mass... and a positive charge.


So if for example all matter went to the left and all antimatter went to the right (as a figure of speech) we have two universes, one based on matter and one based on antimatter, both starting from nothing but some energy

God is the only logical explanation for the creation of the universe.
But it's still a baseless explanation.
How else would all the matter for the big bang get here?
it doesn't matter. You don't need to have a contrary explanation in order to see that the one you've chosen isn't fully supported.

Not only that, but the entire proof is always going to rest on straws. Since you can't actually physically see anything travel from the person praying to the person receiving the prayer, all the experiment needs is one counter-example and the whole premise falls apart. If the idea is "certain words and actions produce certain results" and in one instance it didn't, you've got some explaining to do.

science does not work that way. neither does logical inference. physically seeing things hasn't mattered since newton, at the very least. and nothing ever always holds, no matter what the circumstances are.

God doesn't fit in to the equation. The experiment would prove that prayers work. How would then be the unanswerable question, what I'm trying to get at is that the effects of the supernatural (if it exists) absolutely apply to science.

that proof word scares me. "be evidence that..." sounds better.

i really want to know what all these supernatural-testing deniers would claim if it actually was the case that not only did prayer work, but it worked only if it was prayed to a particular god, in accordance with the tradition of a particular religion, by people who were believers in that religion. they've got themselves an beautiful little conceptual burrow to hide in, provided the supernatural doesn't actually exist. but what would they do it if did?

God doesn’t fit in to the equation.
God doesn’t fit into the equation of prayer?

The experiment would prove that prayers work.
It might prove to you that prayers work, but it wouldn’t prove it scientifically.

I see why you’re confused; you’re arguing that prayer (if it works; as an atheist, I obviously don’t think it does) may well have an effect that can be observed empirically. But you’re missing the crucial point: to prove scientifically there is some effect happening from such-and-such a force, one must be able to identify said source, and in laboratory conditions replicate the source and its absence.

As you can’t in any way replicate such a scenario in laboratory conditions, you can’t scientifically test prayer or its effects. There is no way of showing scientifically that it is prayer which is (not) having an effect.

...what I’m trying to get at is that the effects of the supernatural (if it exists) absolutely apply to science.
That’s a complete contradiction in terms.

By necessity, any effects of the supernatural cannot be measured by science, as we can’t prove empirically that something outside of nature is affecting something inside nature. We may well want to say something is happening, but from a scientific standpoint, firmly inside nature, we can't say anything conclusively about that 'something'.

Just a second though, once such a thing is found, the theory will be reshaped, and tested over and over again to see if it wasn't a testing error in the first experiment.

Sure. But let's say it was just a one-time intervention. The result can't be repeated, and science just rolls on without really noticing.

But what if it was a systematic intervention during the development of the universe? Why would that look any different to science than any other systematic process that occurred during the development of the universe?

About your second assumption, well if you do believe that God created the universe you would believe that he/she/it created the laws of physics as well, making your point of God already being proved for useless...

Not quite sure what you mean by that. I don't think anyone has already proved God. And I sincerely doubt that that anyone (except perhaps God) ever will. I'm simply suggesting that even if, and this is a rather big "if", God left evidence of interfering in the universe, science probably ain't going to even notice.

Personally i do believe that there is one or more (g/G)od(s) that created the universe, but that doesn't mean i believe that he/she/it/they interact with everything that occurs here...

Deist?

that proof word scares me. "be evidence that..." sounds better.

i really want to know what all these supernatural-testing deniers would claim if it actually was the case that not only did prayer work, but it worked only if it was prayed to a particular god, in accordance with the tradition of a particular religion, by people who were believers in that religion. they've got themselves an beautiful little conceptual burrow to hide in, provided the supernatural doesn't actually exist. but what would they do it if did?

I suspect a lot of folks would suddenly be saying that they have scientific proof of God's existence.

Of course, as always, I'd be the fellow stubbornly insisting that it ain't proof and it ain't science, even if it is rather convincing. I'm a party pooper like that. :)

I have an... amusing question to propose.

The theory we've been debating is "Do prayers help to heal the sick/poor/etc?" Studies have shown that they do work, but only up to the point that the person being prayed for already knows that someone is praying for them.

What if, then, we tested this event the same way we tested new drugs - with a double blind, control-based experiment? The hypothesis is that prayers do help the sick. The way to empirically test this would be to have four groups pray for a large sample of people. Half would be prayed for by religious people, the other half by atheists. Then, half of each group would let the person they are assigned to know that they are praying for them. The other would not.

Thus, you would have four trial groups, the atheists not telling their assignee that they are praying for them (Control), the atheists telling their assignee that they are praying for them (Test), the religious not telling their assignee that they are praying for them (Test), and the religious telling their assignee that they are praying for them (Test). All groups would be assigned the same prayer to pray for each person for an assigned length, removing that experimental variable as well.

In addition, two other tests could be conducted - both on the theory that, if the assignee is not prayed for, they will be worse off than the others. There would need to be one group of religious and one of atheists, of course.

I'm willing to bet that the result of such a test would be inconclusive, but, as far as I'm concerned, the results of the last test were crap and there must be another, better test performed before people run around saying blindly that prayers work.

if an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, then it fundamentally could not be used as part of anything. that's what words mean.

but it is very good evidence in this case, and you rightly used it as such. most the other stuff you held up as evidence was also "we haven't ever seen x", as well. the one that was a positive statement - we know that somebody claims to have created them - could be undermined simply by us discovering a family upon whom the simpsons are obviously based. matt groening's claims to the contrary wouldn't matter. it quite literally is the absence of any evidence for such a family, such a location, etc, that makes it the case that we believe such doesn't exist.

My point is not to argue the authenticity of The Simpsons- that's a matter for a different (and perhaps intriguing) thread. Rather, to claim non-existence you must provide evidence for non-existence (whether or not such evidence holds up is a different matter). You can't just use absence of evidence as definitive proof for non-existence. I do agree that it can be the *start* of such a case but it cannot be *the* case, because it falls apart if your first piece of evidence regarding the entity actually shows existence.

Right, it's not proof of non-intervention, it's an attempted disproof that a non-intervening purposefull God is compatible with the Big Bang.

It's still not proof. You keep discounting the possibility that God is capable of intervening and "covering up" His tracks because He is the one setting the Laws of Nature. You can't possibly detect something that's capable of avoiding detection.

Ok, sorry, prayers have an effect. Or you could say the majority of prayers have an effect. Right, what this is getting at is, again, the EFFECTS of the hypothetical supernatural within the natural world.

All right then. What if the subject knew they were being prayed for and/or believed someone was praying for them? Would you agree that the "effect" of prayer then is simply to relax the patient and aid in their recovery? Also, even if the patient didn't know they were being prayed for, how do you know that the prayers didn't solve their ailment but an unknown natural cause did?

science does not work that way. neither does logical inference. physically seeing things hasn't mattered since newton, at the very least. and nothing ever always holds, no matter what the circumstances are.

You're confusing "physically seeing" with "human sight". I don't care if it's an actual beam of light that shoots from the praying person's mouth to the patient or a simple particle (which is *still* detectable), I just want something *observable*, and I don't see words doing that.

that proof word scares me. "be evidence that..." sounds better.

i really want to know what all these supernatural-testing deniers would claim if it actually was the case that not only did prayer work, but it worked only if it was prayed to a particular god, in accordance with the tradition of a particular religion, by people who were believers in that religion. they've got themselves an beautiful little conceptual burrow to hide in, provided the supernatural doesn't actually exist. but what would they do it if did?

I'd say it's not enough. Has anyone ever seen what Allah or Yahweh look like?

My point is not to argue the authenticity of The Simpsons- that's a matter for a different (and perhaps intriguing) thread. Rather, to claim non-existence you must provide evidence for non-existence (whether or not such evidence holds up is a different matter). You can't just use absence of evidence as definitive proof for non-existence. I do agree that it can be the *start* of such a case but it cannot be *the* case, because it falls apart if your first piece of evidence regarding the entity actually shows existence.

well, you need to have looked for evidence before a lack of finding it becomes epistemically meaningful. we don't really do proof for most things.

You're confusing "physically seeing" with "human sight". I don't care if it's an actual beam of light that shoots from the praying person's mouth to the patient or a simple particle (which is *still* detectable), I just want something *observable*, and I don't see words doing that.

if it worked, praying causing healing would be observable in precisely the same way that gravity is observable.

It's still not proof. You keep discounting the possibility that God is capable of intervening and "covering up" His tracks because He is the one setting the Laws of Nature. You can't possibly detect something that's capable of avoiding detection.

right, that's true.

All right then. What if the subject knew they were being prayed for and/or believed someone was praying for them? Would you agree that the "effect" of prayer then is simply to relax the patient and aid in their recovery? Also, even if the patient didn't know they were being prayed for, how do you know that the prayers didn't solve their ailment but an unknown natural cause did?

No, they didn't know if they were prayed for or not. If beyond reasonable doubt a strong correlation was found between prayer and healing.

well, you need to have looked for evidence before a lack of finding it becomes epistemically meaningful. we don't really do proof for most things.

I don't understand. You mean to tell me that if you haven't found any evidence for existence you're just going to conclude (not assume) that the entity must not exist?

if it worked, praying causing healing would be observable in precisely the same way that gravity is observable.

Yeah...until you hit the one or two (or more) instances where it doesn't. Gravity is pretty consistent...besides, you can observe a force. I *still* fail to see anything that can be detected out of words.

No, they didn't know if they were prayed for or not. If beyond reasonable doubt a strong correlation was found between prayer and healing.

You didn't answer the question- must the correlation equal a god?

No, they didn't know if they were prayed for or not. If beyond reasonable doubt a strong correlation was found between prayer and healing.

Here's a problem, though: there are certainly going to be cases where a person will show a marked improvement once those prayers begin. Even if there isn't a strong correlation, you're still not going to be able to rule out the possibility that prayers affect recovery because there's no way to quantify it or control that variable.

I mean, if I'm ever in a hospital, I damn well hope people are praying for me just in case it actually does something.

Sure. But let's say it was just a one-time intervention. The result can't be repeated, and science just rolls on without really noticing.

But what if it was a systematic intervention during the development of the universe? Why would that look any different to science than any other systematic process that occurred during the development of the universe?


then that would be a law of nature, and not seen as something god might have done...


Not quite sure what you mean by that. I don't think anyone has already proved God. And I sincerely doubt that that anyone (except perhaps God) ever will. I'm simply suggesting that even if, and this is a rather big "if", God left evidence of interfering in the universe, science probably ain't going to even notice.

Well you said that scientist could already have proved that god existed by something he does all the time. So that some of the laws of physics would be really something god does. For example, he would always let water become hotter when it is put on a fire. That could mean that if he gets bored water won't boil anymore.
If it is a simple law of physics, one can argue (if he/she believes in a god in the first place: that god made that law to prevent such errors when he has no time (who knows what an almighty creature can have to do). This would make your make your point useless (at least in my eyes) since it would be an act of god named differently... If i start calling a cat for example yogurt, it won't be any less of a cat will it?



Deist?

To be honest i don't even know what a Deist is, i once had to make a paper for religion about whether i believed in God or not, and argue about it with the teacher (who would be either the biggest believer you'd ever seen, or the biggest atheist ever lived. Once i made it, she couldn't even tell a word since it matched all rather well... Believe it or not, but i even convinced some atheists there are one or more gods...

I do not believe in religion however. To me any religions are as good as any sect. Can be all right, but can be all wrong as well... Fact is we don't know if god even wants to get worshiped in the first place, so people telling that they know the one and only way to make god happy seems a bit strange to me to say the least...

I have an... amusing question to propose.

The theory we've been debating is "Do prayers help to heal the sick/poor/etc?" Studies have shown that they do work, but only up to the point that the person being prayed for already knows that someone is praying for them.

What if, then, we tested this event the same way we tested new drugs - with a double blind, control-based experiment? The hypothesis is that prayers do help the sick. The way to empirically test this would be to have four groups pray for a large sample of people. Half would be prayed for by religious people, the other half by atheists. Then, half of each group would let the person they are assigned to know that they are praying for them. The other would not.

Thus, you would have four trial groups, the atheists not telling their assignee that they are praying for them (Control), the atheists telling their assignee that they are praying for them (Test), the religious not telling their assignee that they are praying for them (Test), and the religious telling their assignee that they are praying for them (Test). All groups would be assigned the same prayer to pray for each person for an assigned length, removing that experimental variable as well.

In addition, two other tests could be conducted - both on the theory that, if the assignee is not prayed for, they will be worse off than the others. There would need to be one group of religious and one of atheists, of course.

I'm willing to bet that the result of such a test would be inconclusive, but, as far as I'm concerned, the results of the last test were crap and there must be another, better test performed before people run around saying blindly that prayers work.


seems a better solution to test it then most posted here already. The problem is that you still have the factor god. Since if prays would seem to work, is it because of the prays, or because of god helped a bit? And if they wouldn't seem to work, is that because the pray would be some kind of a magic (don't like to use this word here, but can't find a better one) spell, from which you need to tell all words in a correct order (and our pray (or spell) would be not the right one)...

Here's a problem, though: there are certainly going to be cases where a person will show a marked improvement once those prayers begin. Even if there isn't a strong correlation, you're still not going to be able to rule out the possibility that prayers affect recovery because there's no way to quantify it or control that variable.

I mean, if I'm ever in a hospital, I damn well hope people are praying for me just in case it actually does something.

Yeah, you don't know if perhaps god can heal people but chooses to only heal certain people, or is only capable of healing certain people or certain illnesses. Or it could be that god exists but is not capable of healing physical illnesses and wounds. Basically, such a test wouldn't show anything.

I don't understand. You mean to tell me that if you haven't found any evidence for existence you're just going to conclude (not assume) that the entity must not exist?

not must, but apparently doesn't. this is standard epistemological practice. if we don't see any evidence of unicorns, of dragons, of tiny tea pots orbiting out beyond mars, then we rightly believe they do not exist. of course, we may at some point find some evidence that pushes our justified belief back the other way. at that point we should modify our beliefs, but not before.

Yeah...until you hit the one or two (or more) instances where it doesn't. Gravity is pretty consistent

there are plenty of statistical relations in the universe. constancy is not required.

besides, you can observe a force. I *still* fail to see anything that can be detected out of words.

really, you can observe the force that holds the earth in orbit around the sun? honestly? cause that's a pretty awesome superpower. the rest of us mere mortals just get to observe the effects.

then that would be a law of nature, and not seen as something god might have done...

Well you said that scientist could already have proved that god existed by something he does all the time. So that some of the laws of physics would be really something god does. For example, he would always let water become hotter when it is put on a fire. That could mean that if he gets bored water won't boil anymore.
If it is a simple law of physics, one can argue (if he/she believes in a god in the first place: that god made that law to prevent such errors when he has no time (who knows what an almighty creature can have to do). This would make your make your point useless (at least in my eyes) since it would be an act of god named differently... If i start calling a cat for example yogurt, it won't be any less of a cat will it?

Um, it just sounds like you're rephrasing my earlier point here.

To be honest i don't even know what a Deist is, i once had to make a paper for religion about whether i believed in God or not, and argue about it with the teacher (who would be either the biggest believer you'd ever seen, or the biggest atheist ever lived. Once i made it, she couldn't even tell a word since it matched all rather well... Believe it or not, but i even convinced some atheists there are one or more gods...

I do not believe in religion however. To me any religions are as good as any sect. Can be all right, but can be all wrong as well... Fact is we don't know if god even wants to get worshiped in the first place, so people telling that they know the one and only way to make god happy seems a bit strange to me to say the least...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

That's a nice overview. Let me know if it fits, or to what extent it doesn't.

There's nothing that can disprove god. And nothing that can prove him either. Funny how that works.

God is the only logical explanation for the creation of the universe. How else would all the matter for the big bang get here?

"God" isn't by any stretch of imagination a "logical explanation" for the creation of the universe. Have you ever read the two Genesis accounts? Pre-fucking-posterous!
:rolleyes:
I will point out, however, that people too easily opt for their version of Ockham's Razor about things that may as well not merit that approach.

Maybe god exists where the braines are?
Can i safely assume you mean, "branes"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

That's a nice overview. Let me know if it fits, or to what extent it doesn't.

I read only a part of it yet since a lack of time at the moment. Bookmarked the page for further reading though...
I have read the parts that seemed to contain the most relevant info about the subject at the moment and i'll tell you what i think of it...

Critical elements of deist thought included:

* Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
* Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".
* Rejection of the Genesis account of creation and the doctrine of original sin, along with all similar beliefs.
* Rejection of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other religious beliefs.

I don't reject the possibility that it is true. For all i know that really is the word of god... I just think it is very unlikely it is, so i guess that partially fits


Constructive elements of deist thought included:

* God exists and created the universe.
* God wants human beings to behave morally.
* Human beings have souls that survive death; that is, there is an afterlife.
* In the afterlife, God will reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior. Although, others believe God wants humans to be moral and affect what they can in their mortal lives, and they will be rewarded in the same life.


Only the first part i can say i fully agree to. My vision about creation of the universe by god is that it might have been done by accident, and thus he/she/it/they don't even know we're here... So i don't believe there has to be an afterlife and that god wants us to be moral. I do claim there might be an afterlife and a punishment/reward for us there...
I do also think that being morally correct because of the potential punishment is rather hypocrite since you don't want to do good to see your fellow men happy, but just do good since you don't want to see yourself unhappy in the afterlife. A rather egocentric view if you ask me ;)
I believe that we should make our "heaven" here, since the chance exists there is no afterlife. We just need to make this place a happy one for as much people as reasonably possible. One can't solve all problems in the world, one can only try...


So do i consider myself a deist after reading (a part) of that text: no. But i surely am not a theist either...

I don't reject the possibility that it is true. For all i know that really is the word of god... I just think it is very unlikely it is, so i guess that partially fits

Only the first part i can say i fully agree to. My vision about creation of the universe by god is that it might have been done by accident, and thus he/she/it/they don't even know we're here... So i don't believe there has to be an afterlife and that god wants us to be moral. I do claim there might be an afterlife and a punishment/reward for us there...
I do also think that being morally correct because of the potential punishment is rather hypocrite since you don't want to do good to see your fellow men happy, but just do good since you don't want to see yourself unhappy in the afterlife. A rather egocentric view if you ask me ;)
I believe that we should make our "heaven" here, since the chance exists there is no afterlife. We just need to make this place a happy one for as much people as reasonably possible. One can't solve all problems in the world, one can only try...


So do i consider myself a deist after reading (a part) of that text: no. But i surely am not a theist either...

Honestly, I'd probably have to have a much longer conversation with you to accurate pick a category of belief for you, and I don't think we should hijack the topic with it.

Hopefully we can continue this another time.

Well first of all I do not believe in God. I find it incredibly improbable that a superior being is up there judging all of us and he somehow managed to create every last thing in the universe and knew about each person. The only reason we have different religions is so people can get money. Religions always ask for money and more money. Also religion is just another division among people and it just drives people apart and wouldn't the world be so much better if we all got along? Now having said all that I do believe it is possible for a person to believe in the big bang and God. Personally I don't but I once had a teacher who said that everything in science can still be explained by God. See God supposedly can do anything he wants so he could easily have caused the big bang if you believe in God.

well played. of course, while anything does follow from contradictory laws, it really means that things are legal and illegal at the whim of those with the power to punish you.

Why thank you. I have other examples, but I don't realistically see us coming to any conclusion on them.

And besides, it's probably a better discussion for another thread. This one's getting pretty far afield.

Honestly, I'd probably have to have a much longer conversation with you to accurate pick a category of belief for you, and I don't think we should hijack the topic with it.

Hopefully we can continue this another time.


well i find this rather interesting myself as well. My nationstates name is Wolf Rulez so maybe we can discuss this that way, or plan a msn discussion?

not must, but apparently doesn't. this is standard epistemological practice. if we don't see any evidence of unicorns, of dragons, of tiny tea pots orbiting out beyond mars, then we rightly believe they do not exist. of course, we may at some point find some evidence that pushes our justified belief back the other way. at that point we should modify our beliefs, but not before.

Don't get me wrong- I don't think it's wrong to say "there's no reason to believe it" and I do think the scientific method must be inherently atheistic, because to invoke God because you don't have an explanation is just poor methodology. Still, reason alone isn't scientific proof- you've got to have hard evidence for a scientific conclusion, and I don't see how that's possible with a deity. Just because it's unthinkable doesn't make it impossible.

there are plenty of statistical relations in the universe. constancy is not required.

...

really, you can observe the force that holds the earth in orbit around the sun? honestly? cause that's a pretty awesome superpower. the rest of us mere mortals just get to observe the effects.

Mass and "escape velocity" provides hard numbers for one, and, in a single environment they're consistent. Plus, if I drop a ball from my hand, it's *always* going to hit the ground and orbits are also pretty observable as well. We can *see* the effects of gravity (and they're pretty consistent), even if we haven't found the source.

Still, are you going to tell me that words have a scientific effect? What can be empirically collected in the connection between the praying and the receiver? I see a result but nothing else.

what god is incompatable with is being defined by any system of belief.

big bangs may or may not be.

something we don't have to pretend to know anything about in order to experience does seem to give good hugs but leave up to us to avoid screwing everything up for each other.

=^^=
.../\...

Yeah, you don't know if perhaps god can heal people but chooses to only heal certain people, or is only capable of healing certain people or certain illnesses. Or it could be that god exists but is not capable of healing physical illnesses and wounds. Basically, such a test wouldn't show anything.

Exactly. There's no way to quantify it, let alone form testable hypotheses; you could say that based upon the results that prayer doesn't generally affect the condition of most patients, but you could not say that it has no effect.

God is the only logical explanation for the creation of the universe. How else would all the matter for the big bang get here?

Amen. God is real.

i find #5

’[i]f [God] created the earliest state of the universe, then he would have ensured that this state is animate or evolves into animate states of the universe’.

to be an unfounded assumption.

god may well have created millions of such singularities over the (nonexistent) eons until one emitted the required configuration. there was no need to guarantee "success" on the first try.

This concept was explored by Arthur C. Clarke (no believer himself, btw) in his "Rama" series, especially in the final volume, "Rama Revealed."

No because God is supernatural, science's tools can ONLY be used on the natural world.

If:

1.God Exists
2. God is omnipotent
3. God decides that it is better to be unprovable

then, it logically follows that:
4: God's existence will be unprovable.

Why would God want this? Far be it from me to guess at the logic of a Supreme Being, but if I were God, I would suspect that morality on the part of True Believers amounted to little more than self interested reward seeking, while morality on the part of skeptics, or better yet, disbelievers, was true morality.

god may well have created millions of such singularities over the (nonexistent) eons until one emitted the required configuration. there was no need to guarantee "success" on the first try.

Somewhere beyond the boundary of the universe, before time as we know it began:

God: "Awwww.... ME Dammit!!"

Gabriel, peering over His Shoulder: "What?"

"I botched another one. That's 139,502,337,603 without ANY sentient life whatsoever!"

"You tried that thing with the weight of the Higgs Bosun we recommended?"

"Yeah."

"Negative curvature in the 5th and 8th dimensions?"

"Yup."

"How about tweaking the kaon so that it's not time symmetric?"

"If I did that then the anti-kaon decay would... hey... wait a minute..."

(Create create create create create create...)

Six days later:

Gabriel: "It's beautiful. Really. I mean it's like... wow."

God: "Thanks. I am Me, you know. Supreme Being?"

"One little thing... I see you've got the ones on that blue planet over there all believing you actually exist. Didn't we talk about that? You KNOW where that's going to lead?"

"Hey, give me a break. This is my 139,502,337,604th universe. If I want to blow off some steam by screwing with a few sentient species, it's my right."

If:

1.God Exists
2. God is omnipotent
3. God decides that it is better to be unprovable

then, it logically follows that:
4: God's existence will be unprovable.

Why would God want this? Far be it from me to guess at the logic of a Supreme Being, but if I were God, I would suspect that morality on the part of True Believers amounted to little more than self interested reward seeking, while morality on the part of skeptics, or better yet, disbelievers, was true morality.

Maybe he wants it because he wants something average beings -not scientists, not experts, not mathemeticians or logicians, but plain old dull IQ 100s or belows- to have something they can experience and know in their lives that is beyond human understanding and beyond science and mathematics and logic. Something that is so simple yet so mysterious that it is acheiveable and open to any one.

Some people can understand science, but to say that the vast majority of people are capable of understanding and experiencing science in their lives is unspeakably naive.

And the thing is, God's existence is provable, just in a way that is ineffable, a way that can only be seen by experiencing God, and I know from experience that anyone here who disagrees with me will not understand what I have to say, so I will spare you the trouble. Let's just leave it at you're making no more sense to me then I'm sure I'm making to you.

Somewhere beyond the boundary of the universe, before time as we know it began:

God: "Awwww.... ME Dammit!!"

Gabriel, peering over His Shoulder: "What?"

"I botched another one. That's 139,502,337,603 without ANY sentient life whatsoever!"

"You tried that thing with the weight of the Higgs Bosun we recommended?"

"Yeah."

"Negative curvature in the 5th and 8th dimensions?"

"Yup."

"How about tweaking the kaon so that it's not time symmetric?"

"If I did that then the anti-kaon decay would... hey... wait a minute..."

(Create create create create create create...)

Six days later:

Gabriel: "It's beautiful. Really. I mean it's like... wow."

God: "Thanks. I am Me, you know. Supreme Being?"

"One little thing... I see you've got the ones on that blue planet over there all believing you actually exist. Didn't we talk about that? You KNOW where that's going to lead?"

"Hey, give me a break. This is my 139,502,337,604th universe. If I want to blow off some steam by screwing with a few sentient species, it's my right."

hey never thought of that. Good idea. Funny too:p

Well, according to some persons the more one studies science the more one believes in God.

A person who knows of the person(s) I speak of.:p

And the thing is, God's existence is provable, just in a way that is ineffable, a way that can only be seen by experiencing God, and I know from experience that anyone here who disagrees with me will not understand what I have to say, so I will spare you the trouble. Let's just leave it at you're making no more sense to me then I'm sure I'm making to you.

i guess that would depend what your defenition of proving would be... one can't scientifically proof (or disproof) that god exits. One can build some reasonable discussion from which leads that god has to (or can't) exist. For me that ain't proof, but rather a hypothesis.
Personally i build a hypothesis myself as well, but would love to hear yours.

i guess that would depend what your defenition of proving would be... one can't scientifically prove (or disprove) that god exits. One can build some reasonable discussion from which leads that god has to (or can't) exist. For me that ain't proof, but rather a hypothesis.
Personally i build a hypothesis myself as well, but would love to hear yours.

correcting tense

And the thing is, God's existence is provable, just in a way that is ineffable, a way that can only be seen by experiencing God, and I know from experience that anyone here who disagrees with me will not understand what I have to say, so I will spare you the trouble. Let's just leave it at you're making no more sense to me then I'm sure I'm making to you.

God's existence is not provable. It it were, we'd have heard about it.

I've met Chrstians who insist they have reason to believe in god, but when asked about the circumstances where they gained that reason, they can't honestly claim they know what they experienced wasn't a delusion.

Well, according to some persons the more one studies science the more one believes in God.
The statistics indicate quite the opposite.

i guess that would depend what your defenition of proving would be... one can't scientifically proof (or disproof) that god exits. One can build some reasonable discussion from which leads that god has to (or can't) exist. For me that ain't proof, but rather a hypothesis.
Personally i build a hypothesis myself as well, but would love to hear yours.

God's existence is not provable. It it were, we'd have heard about it.

I've met Chrstians who insist they have reason to believe in god, but when asked about the circumstances where they gained that reason, they can't honestly claim they know what they experienced wasn't a delusion.

Wow. You were really not listening to what I was saying.

I wasn't saying that God could be proved to anyone else. I was saying that God could be proved to you.

I now present you each with a pair of earplugs. ;)

Amen. God is real.

Aoum, that was convincing. :rolleyes:
*looks to and fro for rapidly spinning blades zooming from rock outcroppings*

The statistics indicate quite the opposite.

To help, my experience corroborates your assessment on the statistics.
Which, of course, is significant in a statistical respect.

correcting tense

Thank you for pointing that out :) I know i write rather much mistakes in my texts but thats because its my third language, and still learning to write it properly :s


Wow. You were really not listening to what I was saying.

I wasn't saying that God could be proved to anyone else. I was saying that God could be proved to you.

I now present you each with a pair of earplugs. ;)


Sure i was. You have said that you can prove gods existence by experiencing him/her/it/them. I just point out that what you could experience as the presence of god someone else can experience as something else (dumb luck for example)... Maybe you should listen to others as well in stead of interpreting words the way you want from a thought you already thought to be correct ;)

Thank you for pointing that out :) I know I write rather much mistakes in my texts but thats because its my third language, and still learning to write it properly :s

No problem, you're really not doing too badly actually :)

hey never thought of that. Good idea. Funny too:p

God: ok I'm gonna try thisReality thing ONCE More!

(clink clink of glass tubes)

(clatter.......Crash!

God: Oh CraP!

Big BANG!

UPS. :)

Wierd

Wierd

That's LG for you.

Wow. You were really not listening to what I was saying.

I wasn't saying that God could be proved to anyone else. I was saying that God could be proved to you.

I now present you each with a pair of earplugs. ;)

And, I assert, if you honestly consider the proof you experienced, you can't say for sure it wasn't a delusion.