Logically rationalize God

[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.