Now, let's talk evidence for God.

[MattusMaximus]

cj x - one quick question...

If the supernatural truly exists, yet we reside as totally natural creatures (with the limitations imposed by natural law and sensory input) within the universe, then how does one detect the supernatural?

Ergo, how can one prove - using evidence - the existence of the supernatural?

Please outline an experiment that can address this question.

 

[arthwollipot]

To the rest, if you want to engage productively, instead of tergiversating, please do as RandFan is doing.

Um, what does "tergiversating" mean?

 

[cj.23]

cj x - one quick question...

If the supernatural truly exists, yet we reside as totally natural creatures (with the limitations imposed by natural law and sensory input) within the universe, then how does one detect the supernatural?

Ergo, how can one prove - using evidence - the existence of the supernatural?

Please outline an experiment that can address this question.

Yes - I raised that problem myself - interaction is possible, but ANY supernaturally initiated effect will by definition be natural on actually occurring in nature. I'm going to have a think about how one can test it, and get back to you. I probably should go to bed now as it's 5am here.

It certainly will not be a scientifically testable hypothesis, as we have to step outside of methodological naturalism to even ask the question. Nonetheless, we could falsify the theory I think, and possibly make some predictions from it. I'll work it through and get back to you.

cj x

 

[SimonD]

Um, what does "tergiversating" mean?

ter·giv·er·sate (t

r-j

v

r-s

t

, tûr

j

-v

r-) intr.v. ter·giv·er·sat·ed, ter·giv·er·sat·ing, ter·giv·er·sates 1. To use evasions or ambiguities; equivocate.
2. To change sides; apostatize.



Taken from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tergiversating

 

[athon]

Thanks for trying to explain, cj. Out of most people on this board who have alternative views, yours are the ones I respect, even just out of the effort you make to communicate clearly.

I'm looking forward to the answer you give Matt. Yet my one issue with your explanation above is with the word 'universe'.

To me, universe implies all of that which is connected through space and time. All laws, energy, influences...the lot. If it's outside, it has no influence on things that happen here. If it did...it would be part of the laws, energy, influences we call 'universe'.

That's where I get stuck with this definition of supernatural. It can only imply, to me, that something supernatural refers to events that are not law-based, therefore aren't symmetrical in nature or subscribe to parsimony. I'd be satisfied with that as an explanation, yet it would need to be shown why such assumptions should be abandoned.

Athon

 

[arthwollipot]

ter·giv·er·sate (thttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr-jhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifvhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr-shttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gif, tûrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifjhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-vhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifr-) intr.v. ter·giv·er·sat·ed, ter·giv·er·sat·ing, ter·giv·er·sates 1. To use evasions or ambiguities; equivocate.
2. To change sides; apostatize.



Taken from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tergiversating

Thanks SimonD. I had searched Chambers and not found it.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Yes - I raised that problem myself - interaction is possible, but ANY supernaturally initiated effect will by definition be natural on actually occurring in nature. I'm going to have a think about how one can test it, and get back to you. I probably should go to bed now as it's 5am here.

It certainly will not be a scientifically testable hypothesis, as we have to step outside of methodological naturalism to even ask the question. Nonetheless, we could falsify the theory I think, and possibly make some predictions from it. I'll work it through and get back to you.

cj x

I eagerly await your response...

 

[linusrichard]

I'm afraid I have a little idea of what yrreg is trying to do here, maybe. Let's say you define God as the maker of the Moon. Well, I think we have evidence that the moon has not always existed. Therefore, it is true in a sense that the Moon was "made." Therefore the Moon must have had, in some sense, a "maker." Thus, God exists.

The problem with defining God into existence is that you're left with an utterly meaningless God. If God is defined as the maker of the Moon, then is there any reason at all to believe that God is: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, good, moral, just, worthy of worship, the only one of its kind, possessed of a will, possessed of a personality, at all conscious, indeed anything more than a chunk of rock and various forces acting on that chunk of rock that put that chunk of rock in orbit around us?

I've seen this elsewhere. Someone was trying to say that (and I have to paraphrase, because his use of language was every bit as indecipherable as yrreg's) God is being, and that we exist, and because we exist we have being, and because we have being, being exists, and because God is being and being exists, God exists. You see the problem with this reasoning, I trust.

If I were so inclined, I could define God out of existence in the same dishonest way this other fellow (not yrreg, yet, although I sense it coming) has defined God into existence. I could define God as a being who is both able to lift any weight, and able to create a weight so heavy, even He can't lift it. It can be easily proven that such a being does not exist. Therefore, God does not exist. Again, the reasoning is bad.

I realize it's been said before in this thread, but the burden is on the theist who wants to bring evidence of the existence of God to define God. And he ought to do it in such a way that (1) there is evidence that God exists, and (2) it is meaningful to say that God exists. I believe you can't do both, but the burden, again, is on the theist.

 

[badnewsBH]

Okay, I've been reading Gerry's threads, and I'm starting to get a little frightened.

Substitute the laughing dog for "Ha Ha! Gotcha!", and "beggaminase" for "tergiversate". You start to get dangerously close to "he-who-must-not-be-named", from a certain thread about annoying creationists...

Edit: Getting back on topic here. I really don't get where this is going. Is there evidence for the existence of a higher power? If so, what is it? No effort to be tergiversating here, honest.

 

[Freethinker]

Oh yes I know Hamilton's rule. It does not however explain altruism outside of extended kin groups -- and this is a feature of much animal behaviour as I understand.

My thought is that it does explain altruism in general, and maybe even racism. Keep in mind that this instinct was developed when human society was much smaller and quite a bit different from ours.

We don't know who carries our DNA with much certainty, but in a small group society with no means to easily travel long distances, the odds favor almost anyone you contact as being related.

The only mechanism we had to even make a guess at who carried DNA similar to our own was physical appearance. If someone looks substantially different from us, we can be fairly certain we aren't closely related.

Propagation of our genetics occurs primarily when we produce offspring, but it also occurs when our close relatives produce offspring, so helping others who carry our DNA has a positive impact from an evolutionary perspective.

None of this refutes your claim of altruism being evidence of god, but I believe it offers a plausible alternative explanation.

 

[cj.23]

None of this refutes your claim of altruism being evidence of god, but I believe it offers a plausible alternative explanation.

It is. I'm still not totally convinced, but like you I think we should be looking for natural explanations in terms of evo psych. Just to clarify though - I personally do not make the "claim of altruism being evidence of god" - I merely listed it as one of my list of purported evidences stripped from their supporting arguments -- I don't actually hold a lot of them to have any evidential weight. On this one: dunno - interesting, but not compelling - I would prefer an elegant naturalistic explanation, and suspect one will arise

cj x

 

[Upchurch]

From the generation of its heavier elements (with some help from nuclear forces) to the assembly of its parts into a roughly spherical shape, the moon was made by gravity. If God is the maker of the moon and the moon was made because of gravity, then gravity is God.

This was, of course, the thesis of another poster. Therefore, yrreg is Oknarf ...er, Franko. Further, not trusting the senses was lifegazer's thing, so Malerin is lifegazer.

Conservation of Woo'ism: woo is neither created nor destroyed. It is merely transferred from one troll to another.

 

[Megalodon]

This was, of course, the thesis of another poster. Therefore, yrreg is Oknarf ...er, Franko.

Don't be silly... You just have to remember the breathtaking volume of Franko's word output to discount that possibility

Unless he had a terrible accident with the blender and is presently typing with is nose...

 

[Roboramma]

Well, you can be logically consistent based on a false premise.

Your programmer god argument is logically consistent based on an un-evidenced premise.

The only premises I saw were:
1. That computing power will continue to grow exponentially.
Which seems relatively valid, depending upon how long a time "continue" is meant to refer to.
2. The the beings that live in universes will tend to create massively realistic simulations including sentient beings that don't know they live in a simulation.

Not so sure about that one, but there is some evidence for it. (in the form of the simulations we are creating being more and more layered and the characters included within them being more complex now than say ten years ago). But I think this is a weak spot.

3. That intelligence can have come into being elsewhere (for instance, in another universe) before us. That seems pretty well supported by our own existence.

The point that I find it to be weakest is point two. Simply put, there's no reason to believe that such simulations that resemble our universe would be created, let alone that they would outnumber "real" (uncreated, or created by some other means) universes.

To those who responded with "who created the creators", note that the point isn't that a universe requires a creator, only that, if most universes are simulations, then ours is statistically likely to be one as well, and thus have a creator. Many may not, but most do. That's also the point (as I said) that I find least well supported.

 

[Beth]

I've seen this elsewhere. Someone was trying to say that (and I have to paraphrase, because his use of language was every bit as indecipherable as yrreg's) God is being, and that we exist, and because we exist we have being, and because we have being, being exists, and because God is being and being exists, God exists. You see the problem with this reasoning, I trust.

Actually no. Could you state more explicitly what you feel the problem with this reasoning is?

 

[GeeMack]

Actually no. Could you state more explicitly what you feel the problem with this reasoning is?

Let me help you out with this one, Beth. Gibberish does not, under any circumstances, constitute reasoning. Therefore...

God is being, and that we exist, and because we exist we have being, and because we have being, being exists, and because God is being and being exists, God exists.

... being gibberish, isn't reasoning.

Simply put, there is a problem with reasoning whenever gibberish is claimed to be reasoning. And no thanks necessary, Beth. More than happy to help!

 

[six7s]

You see the problem with this reasoning, I trust.

Actually no. Could you state more explicitly what you feel the problem with this reasoning is?

Beth, there is NO reasoning in that line of so-called thinking... it does NOT make sense

A: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

(B does not respond.)

A: 'Ello, Miss?

B: What do you mean "miss"?

A: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

B: We're closin' for lunch.

A: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this reasoning what I read not half an hour ago on this very thread.

B: Oh yes, the, uh, the Scandinavian Blunder...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

A: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's non-existent, that's what's wrong with it!

B: No, no, it's uh,... it's it's developing.

A: Look, matey, I know non-existent reasoning when I see it, and I'm looking at some right now.

B: No no it's not non-existent, it's, it's developin'! Remarkable evidence, the Scandinavian Blunder, idn'it, ay? Wonderful agility!

A: The agility don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

​

 

[Beth]

It seems to me that there are only two premises and three logical steps. It leads to a tautology, but that’s not gibberish or a reasoning defect. What is the problem with any of the logical steps (that’s the reasoning).

The premises are:
1: God is being. (G = B)
2: We exist. (W is not the empty set)

Followed by the logical steps that
1: We exist therefore we have being. (W is a subset of B)
2: Therefore being exists. (B is not an empty set)
3: Therefore God exists. (G is not an empty set)

 

[paximperium]

It seems to me that there are only two premises and three logical steps. It leads to a tautology, but that’s not gibberish or a reasoning defect. What is the problem with any of the logical steps (that’s the reasoning).

The premises are:
1: God is being. (G = B)
2: We exist. (W)

Followed by the logical steps that
1: We exist therefore we have being. (W is a subset of B)
2: Therefore being exists. (B is not an empty set)
3: Therefore God exists. (G is not an empty set)

Alright...so?
You've just depicted god as nothing more than existence.
Is this god intelligent? has any powers?is the one depicted in the bible?
I could do exactly the same and replace god with Zebob the Celestial Troll and it would be as intelligent an argument.

This argument is gibberish.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Beth, there is NO reasoning in that line of so-called thinking... it does NOT make sense

A: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

(B does not respond.)

A: 'Ello, Miss?

B: What do you mean "miss"?

A: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

B: We're closin' for lunch.

A: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this reasoning what I read not half an hour ago on this very thread.

B: Oh yes, the, uh, the Scandinavian Blunder...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

A: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's non-existent, that's what's wrong with it!

B: No, no, it's uh,... it's it's developing.

A: Look, matey, I know non-existent reasoning when I see it, and I'm looking at some right now.

B: No no it's not non-existent, it's, it's developin'! Remarkable evidence, the Scandinavian Blunder, idn'it, ay? Wonderful agility!

A: The agility don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

​

That's not an argument for the existence of God. It's an argument for the existence of SmerdFish with the word SmerdFish crossed out and the word God written in.