Proof of God

[Damien Evans]

there is some really great circlework going on here...

 

[BillyJoe]

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

Thank-you, Mashuna, I think you've just refined my argument for me.



First of all, though, the deistic god is not the god of "the gaps", that's the interventionist god. The deistic god is the the god of "The Gap" or, even, "The Ultimate Gap". This particular Gap has not yet been encroached upon by science in all of human history to date. Hmmm....some Gap.



But the main point is that god is the god of the gap(s).
Whereas the tooth faerie does not reside in ANY gap.
There is absolutely nothing for the little bugger to do!


Hence, this leads back to my original argument that god cannot be as easily dismissed as the tooth faerie.




thank-you once again, Mashuna,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

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

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

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

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

Evidence trumps arguments.

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

So now you're telepathic ?

Not sure what you want me to do with these odd bits of string.
Oh well, maybe I'll just throw them in the trash can where they belong.



regards,
BillyJoe

 

[volatile]

First of all, though, the deistic god is not the god of "the gaps", that's the interventionist god. The deistic god is the the god of "The Gap" or, even, "The Ultimate Gap". This particular Gap has not yet been encroached upon by science in all of human history to date. Hmmm....some Gap.

You don't think there are, and have ever been, any scientists who are looking for an explanation for the start of the universe? Man, you're deluded.

Hence, this leads back to my original argument that god cannot be as easily dismissed as the tooth faerie.

Because of the gap! That's why its called a "God of the Gaps" argument...

 

[Snap]

The greatest proof of God is that He does not exist. If He did, He'd be on an equal playing field with us. He is, after all, superior to us. He'd also have to submit to the same laws and logic that we do. And let me say this, He does not submit to anyone or anything. It's quite the other way around. Also, He does not have to make sense, especially if someone's demanding that He does. God will surely rebuke that person with the proclamation: "I do not have to respond to you nor make sense and, therefore, won't and don't. Enter immediately into the eternally burning fires of Hell, infidel, where there ye shall suffer the constant wailing and gnashing of the teeth (that never wear away, BTW). You brought this upon yourself, unbeliever. I do not really wish to punish you for I am kind and merciful, but I have given you free will and this is the fate you have chosen."

Also, God would have to be part of the universe in which we exist. Because He created the Universe, He is somehow outside of it and not a direct part of it. Therefore, for God to be superior to us who are His creation, He cannot exist!

This is my humble proof of God!

 

[BillyJoe]

Mobyseven:
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

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

Mobyseven:
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?

Yes you are.

You are making the claim that "if god created the universe...we should be able to detect god in some way".

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

So, back up your claim that "if god created the universe...we should be able to detect god in some way" in the case of the deistic god described above.

My opinion is the such a god is not detectable.
If you say he is detectable, show me how he would be detected.

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.

I was trying to show you why you were being silly without actually rubbing your nose in it.
Sorry I tried.
So here it is for everyone else to judge:

You said:

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

To which I replied:

"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."

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

It's "The God of The Ultimate Gap" v "The Gapless Tooth Faerie".
It's the argument that separates god from the tooth faerie.

(See reply to Mashuna.)

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'.

When comparing god to the tooth faerie, I am using the same standard.
(see reply to Mashuna)

 

[BillyJoe]

You don't think there are, and have ever been, any scientists who are looking for an explanation for the start of the universe? Man, you're deluded.

I am saying they have not resolved the question about for something out of nothing or time/space without beginning.

Because of the gap! That's why its called a "God of the Gaps" argument...

...or "god of the ultimate gap"....versus "the gapless tooth faerie"

 

[Belz...]

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

It's not my fault if you have a reading disorder, Herz.

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.

I like how you use words to make it appear as though I'm saying something else.

Whether or not the US president believes the russians have started a war has no bearing on whether or not they did.

But I never said it didn't matter, whatever the hell that means.

Correct, Belzebub?

That's "Master", to you.

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?

I don't know. I'd have thought you were smart enough to understand what I meant the first time around, but I see you're either NOT smart enough, or are playing stupid philosophical games.

What was that? Your concept of reality? Haha!

No, it was a reiteration of my previous statement. Are you drunk ?

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

You REALLY love to read your own posts, don't you ?

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...

Really ? I think I need a definition of "ethics", according to you, then, before I can proceed.

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

Something like that. It's not a word that's used often in French, and it's pedantic, so I use it every chance I get because I just love how it sounds.

You ?

 

[Paulhoff]

Talk about a thick headed German, Herzblut meet Ignore, Ignore meet Herzblut.

Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

The greatest proof of God is that He does not exist. If He did, He'd be on an equal playing field with us. He is, after all, superior to us. He'd also have to submit to the same laws and logic that we do. And let me say this, He does not submit to anyone or anything. It's quite the other way around. Also, He does not have to make sense, especially if someone's demanding that He does. God will surely rebuke that person with the proclamation: "I do not have to respond to you nor make sense and, therefore, won't and don't. Enter immediately into the eternally burning fires of Hell, infidel, where there ye shall suffer the constant wailing and gnashing of the teeth (that never wear away, BTW). You brought this upon yourself, unbeliever. I do not really wish to punish you for I am kind and merciful, but I have given you free will and this is the fate you have chosen."

Also, God would have to be part of the universe in which we exist. Because He created the Universe, He is somehow outside of it and not a direct part of it. Therefore, for God to be superior to us who are His creation, He cannot exist!

This is my humble proof of God!

Congratulations!
I didn't think there could anyone who makes less sense than belz.

Of course you're joking.


Aren't you?

 

[volatile]

I am saying they have not resolved the question about for something out of nothing or time/space without beginning.

But they are trying, and there are theories, and there are experiments being performed right now to work towards solving this problem. I can't pretend to understand them (I'm a philosopher, not an astrophysicist!), but let me assure you that they are being undertaken...

...or "god of the ultimate gap"....versus "the gapless tooth faerie"

The size of the gap is irrelevant.

It's getting a little tiresome trying to explain to you why this is the case. It makes me more than a little cross that I've taken a long time, as has M7 and others, to explain to you the concepts of burden of proof and falsifiability as they apply to this problem. Your only rebuttal is "But God still might have done it!", and it's growing old really fast.

 

[BillyJoe]

But they are trying, and there are theories, and there are experiments being performed right now to work towards solving this problem. I can't pretend to understand them (I'm a philosopher, not an astrophysicist!), but let me assure you that they are being.

The point is that the problem has not been solved.
So, who is to say what the solution will be.
It is even possible that there may never be a solution to this ultimate question.

The size of the gap is irrelevant.

How can I say it simply...

The gap in the case of "the gapless tooth faerie" = zero
The gap in the case of "the god of the ultimate gap" = a gap that has not and may never be filled by science.

This is the difference that separates god from the tooth faerie.

It's getting a little tiresome trying to explain to you why this is the case. It makes me more than a little cross that I've taken a long time, as has M7 and others, to explain to you the concepts of burden of proof and falsifiability as they apply to this problem. Your only rebuttal is "But God still might have done it!", and it's growing old really fast.

My argument is that god cannot be dismissed as easily as the tooth faerie.

And "the concepts of burden of proof and falsifiability" do not apply to this problem as I have shown previously:

Volatile:
"If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not disprove his existence by observation.

BillyJoe:
But also:
If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not prove his existence by observation.

Volatile:
The assertion 'God exists' would be unfalsifiable because of the nature of God.

BillyJoe:
But also: The assertion 'God exists' would be unverifiable because of the nature of God.

Volatile:
On the other hand, the assertion 'God does not exist' is falsifiable. This assertion can be falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of God."

BillyJoe:
But, if the existence of God is unverifiable, then you cannot "demonstrate the existence of God" and therefore the assertion "god does not exist" is not falsifiable.


Volatile:
We can thus discard 'God exists' as our base hypothesis, as, being unfalsifiable, is useless in determining the 'truth' of God's existence. "God does not exist", however, is falsifiable, and thus useful as a hypothesis to start our investigations with.

BillyJoe:
I disagree because "god does not exist is not falsifiable

I have added the red bit to make it clearer (hopefully).


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Belz...]

Not sure what you want me to do with these odd bits of string.
Oh well, maybe I'll just throw them in the trash can where they belong.

Translation: "Gee, I don't know how to counter that. I'll just ignore it, instead."

Billy, Why do you say something came from nothing ?

Why would time have a beginning ?

My opinion is the such a god is not detectable.

And therefore has no effect on this universe, whatsoever.

What a useful chap.

 

[Belz...]

The gap in the case of "the god of the ultimate gap" = a gap that has not and may never be filled by science.

This is the difference that separates god from the tooth faerie.

And yet they STILL both do not exist.

My argument is that god cannot be dismissed as easily as the tooth faerie.

Your argument is one from ignorance.

And "the concepts of burden of proof and falsifiability" do not apply to this problem as I have shown previously:

Oh ? Why not ?


Oh NO! I've answered with one-liners again!

 

[Z]

IF God is in no way detectable, THEN God is absolutely irrelevant. Even if God created the Universe.

 

[Mobyseven]

Yes you are.

You are making the claim that "if god created the universe...we should be able to detect god in some way".

Yes, that is what I am claiming. I am not claiming the existence of god, which is what you seemed to be suggesting.

Think of it this way: If god created the universe, but left absolutely no trace of himself, then if or when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen, we will be able to completely explain it without god. As such, god would not be a necessary condition for the existence of the universe.

You posit an unfalsifiable deity who is not necessary for the universe to exist. As such, you can remove god from this equation entirely, and you are left with an unfalsifiable god that does nothing. The excuse that you used to grant god a superior status to the tooth fairy (or the atom-fairy) disappears in your own definition of such a god.

I was trying to show you why you were being silly without actually rubbing your nose in it.
Sorry I tried.
So here it is for everyone else to judge:

You said:

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

To which I replied:

"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."

Ugh - the whole point being that if we can explain the beginning of the universe without god, why would we include god in our explanations?

It's "The God of The Ultimate Gap" v "The Gapless Tooth Faerie".
It's the argument that separates god from the tooth faerie.

Fine, you want to play that game?

Prove that the tooth fairy does not exist. You seem so damn sure that the tooth fairy and god are in separate leagues? If you're serious, then prove that the tooth fairy does not exist.

You are quickly going to discover just why burden of proof and falsifiability are important.

When comparing god to the tooth faerie, I am using the same standard.

No, you are holding god to a lower standard than that of the tooth fairy. If you disagree, then I put it to you that you cannot conclusively prove that the tooth fairy does not exist, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

 

[Belz...]

IF God is in no way detectable, THEN God is absolutely irrelevant. Even if God created the Universe.

Actually, if God created the universe, Zaayr, that'd be something that would leave traces.

 

[Belz...]

Ugh - the whole point being that if we can explain the beginning of the universe without god, why would we include god in our explanations?

Because he makes us feel better ?

Because we "just know" he exists ?

 

[Herzblut]

It's not my fault if you have a reading disorder, Herz.
...
Whether or not the US president believes the russians have started a war has no bearing on whether or not they did.

But I never said it didn't matter, whatever the hell that means.

You didn't? Well, then you have hidden it well in your statement that I'm citing now for the millionth time:

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

Not sticking to this crap until total refutation would have served your credibility. But you wanted it like that.

I'd have thought you were smart enough to understand what I meant the first time around,

This drains your credibilty even further. Presenting a wrong statement and then finally claiming the others simply didn't understand you is grossly dishonest.

You REALLY love to read your own posts, don't you ?

Talking again about your total refutation, please answer my question, if you can of course:

What is a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Really ? I think I need a definition of "ethics", according to you, then, before I can proceed.

You made a claim, do the work and prove it!

Something like that. It's not a word that's used often in French, and it's pedantic, so I use it every chance I get because I just love how it sounds.

I love "ubiquitous". It's funny that the corresponding Spanish word "ubicuo" is hardly known, the German "ubiquitär" totally unknown. I like "facetious" as well.

Herzblut

 

[Z]

Actually, if God created the universe, Zaayr, that'd be something that would leave traces.

I disagree. I don't think any member of any species within that universe would be able to recognize traces, if they existed, of creation by any such God. Especially in the scenario I most often envisage - which is that God expires, and Its death results in the Big Bang that started it all...