Logically rationalize God

[xerx]

I'm not going to get dragged into a long discussion about the nature of science vs. philosophy, so I'll just say that a priori claims, or at least their conclusions, have to be falsifiable to qualify as scientific.

[Hitta]

I'm not going to get dragged into a long discussion about the nature of science vs. philosophy, so I'll just say that a priori claims, or at least their conclusions, have to be falsifiable to qualify as scientific.

But time and time again you fail at understanding that hypothesis do not have to be built from the bottom up to be true. For example, if my hypothesis were that Aliens exist, just because the hypothesis isn't falsifiable by modern means does not mean that the hypothesis isn't falsifiable overall. Not knowing how to create a falsifiable test is not an excuse for calling something non-falsifiable. Just because something isn't scientifically falsifiable by modern means does not make it wrong. I don't think you get how hard it is to create an hypothesis which perfectly layers the variables in a way in which creates falsifiability. Also, because something has been tested via hypothesis testing does not mean a causation has been established. And often times, the tests miss the laws that govern both causation and correlation completely, mainly because variables haven't been isolated correctly even though we base the foundations on our society that they have been.

[xerx]

But time and time again you fail at understanding that hypothesis do not have to be built from the bottom up to be true. For example, if my hypothesis were that Aliens exist, just because the hypothesis isn't falsifiable by modern means does not mean that the hypothesis isn't falsifiable overall.

That may be true, but you're not doing anything to produce these new empirical methods. Abstract word salads and subjective prevarications don't help you test your hypothesis.

[Hitta]

That may be true, but you're not doing anything to produce these new empirical methods. Abstract word salads and subjective prevarications don't help you test your hypothesis.

I don't see how a thought experiment followed by logical deductions on said thought experiment can qualify as "subjective prevarications". I gave three ways in which reality could be schemed based on these logical deductions, and then I depicted criteria in which option C could be fulfilled. I have my own logical deductions on why C is correct in which I haven't shared yet. It is rather jarring, however, how all your opinions seem to be clouded by your own conspicuous religiosity.

[xerx]

I don't see how a thought experiment followed by logical deductions on said thought experiment can qualify as "subjective prevarications". I gave three ways in which reality could be schemed based on these logical deductions, and then I depicted criteria in which option C could be fulfilled. I have my own logical deductions on why C is correct in which I haven't shared yet. It is rather jarring, however, how all your opinions seem to be clouded by your own conspicuous religiosity.

nah, I just call it as I see it

[Hitta]

nah, I just call it as I see it

No you don't, you are completely invested in it. That's why you are trying to prove atheism to people in a thread in which the creator politely asked nobody to do or to create another thread in order to do so. It actually bothers you that people do not think like you do.

[xerx]

No you don't, you are completely invested in it. That's why you are trying to prove atheism to people in a thread in which the creator politely asked nobody to do or to create another thread in order to do so. It actually bothers you that people do not think like you do.

I don't care what other people believe.

All I claimed (in this thread, not in yours) is that it's not possible to prove the existence of god empirically (i.e. scientifically). Could we acquire the ability to empirically prove some aspect of god in the future, from a position of enhanced scientific understanding? I don't know, but I'm actually inclined to believe that we can.

For instance, there's a view being seriously entertained by some physicists (like Max Tegmark) called 'Panpsychism,' which argues that consciousness is a fundamental component of the universe—it's something intrinsic to matter and potentially irreducible. The consequence is that even the atoms in your chair might have a kind of primitive consciousness. It's apparent that such a discovery, if it were true, would open the door to inquiries about claims once relegated to the status of 'spiritual mysticism.'



P.S. if this is about that Chewbacca video, I deleted the post.

[consentingadult]

Inspired by this (I can delete if preferred):



If you're anyone so inclined, please provide logic in favor of the existence of God.

If you want to share your disagreement or opinion that there's no God, please make another thread! Your viewpoint is valid and your logic is probably sound, but that's not this thread's intention.

Before I can answer, please define "God".

To put it simply: the structure of the universe cannot have happened randomly. It is a directed effort (it even goes against the second law of thermodynamics). I assume you're an atheist, could you provide some evidence as to god's non existence?

I would argue that if the universe cannot have happened randomly, then the same applies to God. Following the logic of your post, we must assume something or someone must have created God. Perhaps he has a mommy and a daddy. Perhaps they have/had mommies and daddies too!

Really, Intelligent Design does not offer a solution to the question of God. Assuming the Universe must have some kind of creator only makes the problem bigger.

[ashlesha]

Before I can answer, please define "God".

I would leave that up to the respondent and how they wish to define it, but I guess that still leaves certain qualifiers I have in mind like responsible for existence, omnipotent, worthy of worship, etc

I had the Christian idea of God in mind, but that's not a prerequisite for the practice.

This said, I've washed my hands of the question (the thread is obviously still open)

Sorry for the vague reply.

[Sol]

When the universe had a start at zero time point - anything was united. This state had anything to appear what will exist then, it's the source and the reason of anything, the Creator of anything. The link with this state can be felt as the unification with God.

This is possible if to assume inter-time links, in both time directions. The same as through the space.

[Kill4Me]

There's no way to logically prove God until you can at least show sufficient evidence of a supernatural realm. Until that time, any argument for God which does not first show evidence of supernaturalness is baseless.

The bible doesn't cut it in so far as evidence of God goes. A book about supernatural phenomena is not evidence of supernatural phenomena which we can then base a logical argument for God on.

Millions of books have been written by men, women alike, and published for distribution to the public. Thousands of books contain stories about Gods, Mythologies, magical worlds, and pretty much anything else you can imagine. People pick up a pen and write words onto page and tell stories all in conformity with space and time. Writing is a craft. Publishing books is a business. The bible is the result of the same action sets by which books came into existence before and after.

So whenever a Christian says the bible is proof of God, they are not using logic. That is not a logical argument. It's merely a baseless assumption. Assumptions do not equate to evidence. You can pile up as many assumptions as you want or as many congregations as you want, and that doesn't mean shit in terms of logically proving God.

Likewise for Muslims, Jews, Hindus and everybody else. Probably its human nature to create these mythologies. The Greeks had their Zeus on Mt. Olympus, the Christians have their Jesus in Heaven. So on.

[Metamorph]

There's no way to logically prove God until you can at least show sufficient evidence of a supernatural realm. Until that time, any argument for God which does not first show evidence of supernaturalness is baseless.

The bible doesn't cut it in so far as evidence of God goes. A book about supernatural phenomena is not evidence of supernatural phenomena which we can then base a logical argument for God on.

Millions of books have been written by men, women alike, and published for distribution to the public. Thousands of books contain stories about Gods, Mythologies, magical worlds, and pretty much anything else you can imagine. People pick up a pen and write words onto page and tell stories all in conformity with space and time. Writing is a craft. Publishing books is a business. The bible is the result of the same action sets by which books came into existence before and after.

So whenever a Christian says the bible is proof of God, they are not using logic. That is not a logical argument. It's merely a baseless assumption. Assumptions do not equate to evidence. You can pile up as many assumptions as you want or as many congregations as you want, and that doesn't mean shit in terms of logically proving God.

Likewise for Muslims, Jews, Hindus and everybody else. Probably its human nature to create these mythologies. The Greeks had their Zeus on Mt. Olympus, the Christians have their Jesus in Heaven. So on.

But, lightning is proof of Zeus. Checkmate atheī!

[valhalla]

But, lightning is proof of Zeus. Checkmate atheī!

Ya congrats you grew up in the modern world. so smart. much rational. no supernaturalist here.

[FreelancePoliceman]

But, lightning is proof of Zeus. Checkmate atheī!

Not that it matters, but the plural would be "atheoi". "i" is the Latin masculine nominative/vocative plural ending of the second declension. "Theos" is from Greek, and while you got the declension, gender, number, and case right, you got the wrong language. ツ

[Metamorph]

Not that it matters, but the plural would be "atheoi". "i" is the Latin masculine nominative/vocative plural ending of the second declension. "Theos" is from Greek, and while you got the declension, gender, number, and case right, you got the wrong language. ツ

I got the right language. If I wanted to speak Latin, I'd say lightning is proof of Jupiter.

[Metamorph]

Not that it matters, but the plural would be "atheoi". "i" is the Latin masculine nominative/vocative plural ending of the second declension. "Theos" is from Greek, and while you got the declension, gender, number, and case right, you got the wrong language. ツ

More seriously, atheī is valid Latin and both checkmate atheoi and checkmate ἄθεοι look wrong to me aesthetically, but maybe we could ask the hoi polloi if you think that's an issue.

[Hitta]

I'm not going to get dragged into a long discussion about the nature of science vs. philosophy, so I'll just say that a priori claims, or at least their conclusions, have to be falsifiable to qualify as scientific.

BTW, this is a ridiculous quote. Let's say that I wanted to prove a triangle had 180 degrees.. How the hell would I do a scientific study on this? I mean ok, it isn't scientific... who cares? The whole idea of a priori is that it isn't empirical... it is self evident based on logical reasoning. So should we go around and pretend like triangles don't have 180 degrees because we can't create a real falsifiable hypothesis.

[xerx]

BTW, this is a ridiculous quote. Let's say that I wanted to prove a triangle had 180 degrees.. How the hell would I do a scientific study on this? I mean ok, it isn't scientific... who cares? The whole idea of a priori is that it isn't empirical... it is self evident based on logical reasoning. So should we go around and pretend like triangles don't have 180 degrees because we can't create a real falsifiable hypothesis.

"God exists" *is* an empirical claim.

"A euclidean triangle must have 180 degrees" is a theoretical claim that's true by definition. On the other hand, if someone had said that "euclidean triangles exist," it would also be an empirical claim—a speculative one, given that a triangle has never been observed anywhere in nature, and only appears to exist inside the mind.

[Hitta]

"God exists" *is* an empirical claim.

"A euclidean triangle must have 180 degrees" is a theoretical claim that's true by definition. On the other hand, if someone had said that "euclidean triangles exist," it would also be an empirical claim—a speculative one, given that a triangle has never been observed anywhere in nature, and only appears to exist inside the mind.

You've already stated that god can't be logically deduced(which I disagree with.. I think god is pre-contained within the laws of the universe) or god can't be empirically proven(which I'm not sure is completely possible, perhaps you could do something like dig into the origins of human consciousness or something). Instead of going back and forth pretending like you are trying to be helpful in this thread, just go ahead and tell everyone they are wasting their time and move on. For me "God exists" is not an empirical claim... it is a synthetic a priori claim .

[xerx]

You've already stated that god can't be logically deduced(which I disagree with.. I think god is pre-contained within the laws of the universe) or god can't be empirically proven(which I'm not sure is completely possible, perhaps you could do something like dig into the origins of human consciousness or something).

Uh, no. I'm completely open to the possibility that our science is woefully incomplete and that certain mystical ideas can be studied empirically at some date in the (far) future. I mean, physicists are openly discussing possibilities like atoms having consciousness, or that we live inside a computer simulation.

Frankly, I hope something like a sentient ultra-consciousness does exist to offer up some answers. But from our current (classical) conception of the universe, it would be erroneous to say that specific metaphysical claims have empirical backing (this is my original point), which is entirely appropriate given that metaphysics literally means beyond physics.

Instead of going back and forth pretending like you are trying to be helpful in this thread, just go ahead and tell everyone they are wasting their time and move on. For me "God exists" is not an empirical claim... it is a synthetic a priori claim .

Which doesn't therefore mean that all synthetic a priori claims are true. A logically consistent system isn't true just because it is logically consistent, making your system of rationalizing God very unpersuasive.

You characterization of empiricism is also complete b.s. This is because empirical knowledge is founded on synthetic a priori claims (think of the use of mathematics in the hard sciences). I think you have this funny conception that empiricism = synthetic a posteriori―it isn't.

[Hitta]

You characterization of empiricism is also complete b.s. This is because empirical knowledge is founded on synthetic a priori claims (think of the use of mathematics in the hard sciences). I think you have this funny conception that empiricism = synthetic a posteriori―it isn't.

Actually, I've already stated otherwise in a previous post. All empiricism has to be based in some sort of intrinsic ideal or an a priori foundation(whether logically accurate or inaccurate). So no, that is not true. I will say that that at least a portion has to be synthetic a posteriori. The only reason I brought the distinction up was that the type of god I'm referring to would be very difficult to scientifically validate even if we increase our scientific capacity 10,000 fold. It's hard to scientifically study something that is intrinsic in every single thing in existence. I believe there could be scientific evidence to back it up in case by case basis, but you are still only studying very definite things and not actually proving the overall point. As such , if you only relied on the scientific/empirical, there would always be doubt. There is nothing to really truly point at and define variables. And while my deductions I feel are logical and a priori , I'd be lying to say that there isn't a posteriori components embedded in there.