Proof of God

[Z]

Ethics unable to convince major parts of the society is irrelevant. It's useless cause it will never be applied in reality.

Herzblut

Cause?

CAUSE?

Did you mean to write BEcause? Just wondering - for someone so intent on understanding and interpreting the writings of others, it seems as if your own writings could use a bit closer scrutiny.

However, the trick with ethics, morals, and beliefs, is that if they affect even ONE person, they are relevant. If even one person believes that killing a million people will elevate their divine status, then that belief is highly relevant.

Luckily, ethics based on religion are losing ground fast.

 

[Herzblut]

God is irrelevant in any form. Belief in God is otherwise.

Describe what you mean by relevance of God. Provide a measure for that relevance.

Again, incorrect. The relevance of belief in God is more relevant by far than the relevance of God itself.

Read and understand my statement before you answer. You don't address the point.

Herzblut

 

[Herzblut]

However, the trick with ethics, morals, and beliefs, is that if they affect even ONE person, they are relevant. If even one person believes that killing a million people will elevate their divine status, then that belief is highly relevant.

Define "relevance of one particular ethics". Describe measures for that relevanve.

Luckily, ethics based on religion are losing ground fast.

Describe which religion based ethics are loing ground and how fast. Explain why this is beneficial.

Herzblut

 

[Mobyseven]

BillyJoe:

The point here is - if god created the universe, then he has interacted with the universe. As such, we should be able to detect god in some way - i.e. through that interaction.

If he created the universe, but there is no trace of it, then you are once again left with an unnecessary god, same as our unecessary atom-fairy from before. You say it did something, but define it as being impossible to detect. As leaving this god out of anything will not reduce our understanding in any way, we can safely assume that this god does not exist to the same degree as we can assume the atom-fairy does not exist.

 

[BillyJoe]

The point here is - if god created the universe, then he has interacted with the universe. As such, we should be able to detect god in some way - i.e. through that interaction.

If god is the reason, solely, for something rather than nothing OR time without beginning, how would we go about detecting such a god ?

If he created the universe, but there is no trace of it, then you are once again left with an unnecessary god...

If god "created the universe" then, of course, god exists. Period. Whether or not there is any trace of god in his creation would be irrelevant. Whether or not god was necessary depends on whether or not it is possible for the universe to have come into existence without god. Therefore we can only conclusively dismiss god as being necessary once we discover how the universe could have existed without him. That still, of course, would not exclude him from existing, just that he is not necessary.

...same as our unecessary atom-fairy from before. You say it did something, but define it as being impossible to detect.

Well, you said it did something. But what exactly....

As leaving this god out of anything will not reduce our understanding in any way, we can safely assume that this god does not exist to the same degree as we can assume the atom-fairy does not exist.

But, does the atom-faerie actually do anything that needs doing? An atom decays randomly. Do we need an atom-faerie to determine which atom decays next and when? I don't think so. It's just a random event. You've posited it as doing something that doesn't need doing.

On the other hand, no one knows the answer to the ultimate question of our existence ("something from nothing" or "time without beginning"). In other words, god is posited as being the answer to a question that has not yet been answered by science.

Remember that I am not championing god, nor suggesting there is any evidence for god's existence, nor that the above is a sufficient reason to believe in god, just that he can not be as easily dismissed as the tooth faerie (or the atom faerie).

 

[Mashuna]

On the other hand, no one knows the answer to the ultimate question of our existence ("something from nothing" or "time without beginning"). In other words, god is posited as being the answer to a question that has not yet been answered by science.

Or, as we call him, a GOD OF THE GAPS!

 

[Belz...]

How I deem rain likely or unlikely obviously affects whether I carry an umbrella or not, which is part of "reality" in the sense of being an empirical observation.

You're claim "That something seems UNLIKELY is irrelevant" is blatantly wrong.

You are done and dusted.

Okay, you're not very good at this, so I'm going to spell it out for you, real slow, real simple.

Whether or not you believe that it will rain doesn't change the fact that it will rain or not.

Whether your belief makes you carry an umbrella won't make the rain fall.

Was that clearer, or do you need more help ?

 

[Belz...]

Obviously I meant "not read properly".

Then express yourself properly, then. I'm not supposed to guess what you mean by "table" if you mean "car".

Perhaps I'll just correct your question and be done with it:

Nope. I asked MY question. You don't get to answer a strawman version of it. Who ever said anything about "something from nothing" ? I'm sure you can come up with something.

It's not a theory.
All I am asking you to do is show why it is not the case that it is either "something from nothing" OR "time/space without beginning".
To me it's a self evidently true statement.

It's a self-evidently true statement ? It's not even a sentence.

You say I am confused about the current theories, but you won't even tell me which theories I'm supposed to be confused about, let alone how I have them wrong!

To quote you: "If you're too lazy to go and read them, it's not my fault."

In any case, I have a fair knowledge of the current theories. Whether it's as good as yours I actually have no way of knowing, seeing as you're so constrained in your replies.

If you think something came from nothing, then you're not.

Not when it is a logical argument.

Evidence trumps arguments.

Not when there is no evidence.

Obviously. But then it's pretty useless to the point, isn't it ?

But show me how I'm wrong, I'm happy to learn.
(And the lurkers are absolutely salivating for your words of wisdom. )

So now you're telepathic ?

 

[Belz...]

Wrong. The relevence of a religious belief depends on the quantity of believers, social impact etc. Not on the scientific verifiability of its transcentental claims.

I don't think you understand what we mean by reality, here.

We were talking about relevance, not truth.

So I was right. You're not talking about reality, but belief.

the question "what should be?" is equally important

And also irrelevant.

I am a scientist.

Run for your lives.

Which science teaches which ethics?

Pretty much all of them.

What is telling you right or wrong? Religion does, that's for sure.

Religion imposes its right and wrong. Doesn't make it true. Of course, there is no true right and wrong, but I'd rather not accept one set of those out of fear.

proof of existence of G is irrelevant for the relevance of G.

Well, I'll be damned. You're right, for once.

There is no way to analyse the belief in G and totally disregard G itself.

Scientist my eye.

 

[Herzblut]

Okay, you're not very good at this, so I'm going to spell it out for you, real slow, real simple.

Whether or not you believe that it will rain doesn't change the fact that it will rain or not.

Whether your belief makes you carry an umbrella won't make the rain fall.

Was that clearer, or do you need more help ?

Exciting story. Your claim is though:

Whether or not you believe that it will rain is irrelevant.

This claim is falsifiable. It is falsified.

Try better next time.

Herzblut

 

[Herzblut]

I don't think you understand what we mean by reality, here.

What you think I understand is irrelevant. At best.

But why don't you just explain what you mean by reality. Then we will see.

Pretty much all of them.

Please describe the ethics implied by physics.

but I'd rather not accept one set of those out of fear.

Who cares? To repeat your favorite word: irrelevant!

So, we are awaiting your concept of reality, truth and relevance. Words you are scattering behind you in your verbal zigzag frenzy.

Herzblut

 

[Belz...]

Whether or not you believe that it will rain is irrelevant.

Yes, irrelevant to whether or not it will rain.

This claim is falsifiable.

Of course it is. All you have to do is provide one example of a person's belief that the rain will come to actually have an effect on whether or not it did come and you'll have a case.

It is falsified.

All you've managed to prove is that you don't understand what we're talking about.

What you think I understand is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to whether or not it's true, indeed.

Though you've provided plenty of evidence to support my opinion.

But why don't you just explain what you mean by reality.

Gee, darn. Now you're going to tell me you don't know what reality is ?

Or did you miss the part where I said the following:

Whether or not you believe it will rain doesn't change the fact that it WILL rain or not. Ergo, your belief is irrelevant to the fact. This doesn't mean it has no importance to anybody. Your strawman is soaked, by the way.

Please describe the ethics implied by physics.

Ugh.

Science can show us the consequences of what we do. Ethics is based on preventing said consequences. At least, the bad ones.

Who cares? To repeat your favorite word: irrelevant!

Actually, my favourite word is "nonobstant".

So, we are awaiting your concept of reality, truth and relevance. Words you are scattering behind you in your verbal zigzag frenzy.

Coming from someone who's substituting evidence with sophistry, that's quite hilarious.

 

[Herzblut]

Yes, irrelevant to whether or not it will rain.

Oh! Now you stoop to qualifying your statement, which you had presented before as kinda universal law of nature:

That something seems UNLIKELY is irrelevant. What MATTERS is whether or not it's true.

Like in: whether or not the US president truely believes the Russians have started an atomic strike against the US&A is irrelevant. Because it ONLY MATTERS whether or not it's true.

Correct, Belzebub?

To watch your demolition isn't nice, you feel good like this?

1st version: Your belief in X is irrelevant!
2nd version: Your belief in X is irrelevant for reality!
3rd version: Your belief in X is irrelevant for the truth of X.

What comes next?

Gee, darn. Now you're going to tell me you don't know what reality is ?

No, I was going to tell you that you don't know what reality is.

Whether or not you believe it will rain doesn't change the fact that it WILL rain or not. Ergo, your belief is irrelevant to the fact. This doesn't mean it has no importance to anybody. Your strawman is soaked, by the way.

What was that? Your concept of reality? Haha!

BTW:
What is a self-fulfilling prophecy? What is a self-destroying prophecy?

Science can show us the consequences of what we do. Ethics is based on preventing said consequences. At least, the bad ones.

Stop babbling.

You claimed that almost every science implies ethics. Please provide evidence! I tell you in advance you cannot, because what you claim is wrong. But, just go ahead...

Actually, my favourite word is "nonobstant".

Meaning "although" and "despite" like Spanish "no obstante"?

Herzblut

 

[edge]

Z said,

However, the trick with ethics, morals, and beliefs, is that if they affect even ONE person, they are relevant. If even one person believes that killing a million people will elevate their divine status, then that belief is highly relevant.

Well that’s immorality and that One person is relevant to those who want to up hold morality.
It’s not taught by physics.
What is taught by science is such things as vanity, greed the love of money, and how to kill each other with bigger and bader weapons. Science is destroying the Earth with pollution. There are some good comforts but then there are some bad.
Science is a tool that should be used under morality for good.
But then there’s that One person that comes along and that person has no morality because of his lack of beliefs. Or has twisted our beliefs to fit his, through deception, all in the name of convenience.
I can relate one such convenience even now that has been prophesied.


That’s why a skeptic who doesn’t have to answer to a higher power will never be the president of this nation unless he or she lies.

Luckily, ethics based on religion are losing ground fast.

Exactly the opposite is occurring.
Just like your above statement because more are turning towards God than away.

 

[FSM]

<Snippery>

What is taught by science is such things as vanity, greed the love of money, and how to kill each other with bigger and bader weapons.

<snip>

That’s why a skeptic who doesn’t have to answer to a higher power will never be the president of this nation unless he or she lies.

<and snippy>

Obviously we are now discussing the Death Star, the ultimate Darth Bader weapon employed by the Dark Side of the force. I'll go on the record saying that I disagree with the destruction of an entire planet. I will also suggest that "science," perhaps, teaches nothing. Rather, people using the scientific method can choose to teach others what they have tested and found to be observable after they have re-tested results over and over again. Science, unlike dowsing or psychic abilities, relies upon testable procedures and results that are easily reproduced.

To my knowledge, there is no science that is in the business of teaching the "greed the love of money," although I would argue that religion might more properly teach that type of lesson.

And finally, presidents come in all shapes and flavors and our image of a proper president evolves over time. Who knows what the future will hold? Some might say that the current administration proves that even the mentally challenged can hold office.

 

[Paulhoff]

It’s not taught by physics.

Here is a big shocker for you, physics is anything but the only science. The so-called scientist has no idea that science means more then the study of the physical world, there is a thing called the social sciences.

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

Here is a big shocker for you, physics is anything but the only science. The so-called scientist has no idea that science means more then the study of the physical world, there is a thing called the social sciences.

Paul

So what? Social sciences neither teach any ethics and/or morality.

No science does that.

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

So what? Social sciences neither teach any ethics and/or morality.

No science does that.

Herzblut

That is so much BS, I don't know what kind of teachers you have in Germany, but the ones I had for the social sciences have a hell of a lot to say about morality.

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

That is so much BS, I don't know what kind of teachers you have in Germany, but the ones I had for the social sciences have a hell of a lot to say about morality.

Paul

What are you talking about? School education?

Herzblut

 

[Mobyseven]

If god is the reason, solely, for something rather than nothing OR time without beginning, how would we go about detecting such a god ?

I don't know off the top of my head. But then again, I'm not the one making the claim. So tell me - how would one go about detecting such a god?

If god "created the universe" then, of course, god exists. Period. Whether or not there is any trace of god in his creation would be irrelevant. Whether or not god was necessary depends on whether or not it is possible for the universe to have come into existence without god. Therefore we can only conclusively dismiss god as being necessary once we discover how the universe could have existed without him. That still, of course, would not exclude him from existing, just that he is not necessary.

Now you're just being silly: "If god exists, then god exists," is essentially what that argument boils down to. You still require proof of existence.

On the other hand, no one knows the answer to the ultimate question of our existence ("something from nothing" or "time without beginning"). In other words, god is posited as being the answer to a question that has not yet been answered by science.

So you think that, "The god of the gaps," is a valid scientific argument?

Remember that I am not championing god, nor suggesting there is any evidence for god's existence, nor that the above is a sufficient reason to believe in god, just that he can not be as easily dismissed as the tooth faerie (or the atom faerie).

Actually, yes, you are championing god through your arguments. You are holding god to a lower standard than everything else, which is rather a large part of 'championing god'.