Doubting your disbelief?

[Taffer]

Can "all phenomena" be explained through naturalistic theories?

I believe so, yes.

And again, Your assertion was that there would be evidence if a God existed. Then tried to support it by saying that there is no reason to believe in it's existence however no reason to believe in existence isn't the same as there being no existence.

Premise: If a God existed, there would be evidence only explainable through a God-hypothesis.
Premise: There is no evidence only explainable through a God-Hypothese.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is no evidence for the existance of God.

If evidence was found, my conclusion would be changed.

Lack of evidence according to whom? You? Modern science? There was a "lack of evidence" to support the idea that atoms contain protons, neutrons and electrons 3,000 years ago from the perspective of what was considered modern science. A lack of evidence doesn't make something "highly statistically unlikely"

Yes it does, Dustin. Not just "a lack of evidence", but actual evidence to the contrary. We have yet to find any phenomenon which cannot be explained through only a naturalistic explanation, or any reason to believe it won't be. The the overwhelming presence of evidence which can be explained without a God-hypothesis, it becomes more and more unlikely that such evidence will exist.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

...where does God fit into that?

Oh, I see.....

Premise 1- All Dogs are mammals. (Fact)

Premise 2- I am petting a Dog. (Fact)

Premise 3 - Dog spelt backwards is God (Fact)

Conclusion - I am touching up God.

No God there. I'm just saying that logically valid arguments who's premise are factual can be proof of something.

It appears to me that Dustin is trying to convince us that not believing his god exists is illogical because.. well, because he said so.

I'm not saying a God necessarily exists.

 

[nescafe]

I said "understands the technology behind something like a Wormhole". Can you make a machine that can create a wormhole which transports matter? No? Then you don't understand the technology behind such a machine.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I understand the technology that allows a computer to work. In principle, given the correct tools, I could build a computer out of raw materials (sand, oil, unrefined metal ores, dirt, etc). In practice, however, I do not possess the skills needed to build one, and at this point am not willing to invest the energy needed to gain those skills.

Your assertion here is just as incorrect as your assertion that no-one can read faster than 600 wpm with an above 90% rate of retention.

Grow up and learn to admit you are wrong sometimes. People tend to respect you more when you do that.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Maybe he performed miracles then and stopped? Maybe those specific religious books are wrong.

Why did this god-creature stop with the magic? And how come it stopped as us humans developed a better understanding of the world (i.e. science and the scientific method).

I see no reason why super advanced technology can't accomplish this.

Stop time completely? In a set area? I'd like to see that.

Maybe Demons and Angels don't exist and therefore no gate can be opened to them.

That's my point, Dustin!! For a god of some sort to actually exist all these demons and angels and elementals and fairies and dragons have to exist as well.

We really can't predict what technology several thousand years in the future can or can't do. It's highly naive to believe so.

Dustin, no technology, no matter how advanced, can bring a person back from being over 200 years dead. Even extremely advanced technology is still limited by the laws of nature. The best you could hope for in this case is recording brain waves, such as in "Altered Carbon" - see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_Carbon
and that's still not what I am talking about when I say "Resurrection"!

I'm sure a man living 1,000 years ago would say that no technology no matter how advanced could transport a human thousands of miles per hour. Stating that "No technology, no matter how advanced.." can duplicate what you mentioned is highly naive and very presumptuous.

Moreover, Let's assume technology CAN'T do it. So what? Maybe some magical wizard can who isn't necessarily "God". This would mean that such magic would not be proof of a God.

Regardless of how advanced technology gets, it is still bound by the limitations of science. Some things just are never going to work, no matter how we imagine them. The laws of physics never stated that aeroplanes couldn't fly, humans just didn't understand enough of the workings of these laws to make a conclusive judgment either way.

Taking an empty skull and bringing the owner of that skull back to life will never be possible with any form of technology. We may one day be able to extract DNA from that skull and regrow the physical body, complete and new, but the person will be a clone, and will have a different personality than the original, with none of the original's memory. Opening a Gate to the Elemental Plane of Fire, and summoning forth an Efreeti Lord will also never be possible, because the Elemental Plane of Fire and Efreeti Lords simply do not exist!

Even basic magic, like seeing the future, talking to the dead, remote viewing, telekinesis or mind reading do not work today. Technology might eventually duplicate some of these effects, but some of them will remain forever out of the reach of technology.

I'm not saying that magic proves that a god-creature exists. It's required for a god-concept to exist. Without magic, these beings can not exist. You have to show magic works first, then we can discuss whether or not a god of some sort exists.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm not saying a God necessarily exists.

But you're "shooting down" reasons for being atheist. You're not fooling anyone. I know you're trying to convince people that your god exists.

 

[nescafe]

Sorry. Let me rephrase it.

All 'A's' are 'B's' and all 'B's' are 'A's'

I am holding a 'B'.

Therefore I am holding an 'A'.

Great, this indeed valid logic. Now then, what do you plug in for 'A' and 'B' that has to do with God?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I believe so, yes.

Explain the origin of the Universe through naturalistic means.

Premise: If a God existed, there would be evidence only explainable through a God-hypothesis.
Premise: There is no evidence only explainable through a God-Hypothese.
Conclusion: Therefore, there is no evidence for the existance of God.

Premise 1 is false.

If evidence was found, my conclusion would be changed.

What evidence? Specifically.

Yes it does, Dustin. Not just "a lack of evidence", but actual evidence to the contrary. We have yet to find any phenomenon which cannot be explained through only a naturalistic explanation, or any reason to believe it won't be. The the overwhelming presence of evidence which can be explained without a God-hypothesis, it becomes more and more unlikely that such evidence will exist.

Is there evidence to the contrary of a "God"?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I understand the technology that allows a computer to work. In principle, given the correct tools, I could build a computer out of raw materials (sand, oil, unrefined metal ores, dirt, etc). In practice, however, I do not possess the skills needed to build one, and at this point am not willing to invest the energy needed to gain those skills.

You could build a computer out of raw materials but don't possess the "skills" needed to build one? What skills? Don't you mean the knowledge to put it together?

Can you make a machine that can create a wormhole which transports matter?

Your assertion here is just as incorrect as your assertion that no-one can read faster than 600 wpm with an above 90% rate of retention.

I backed that assertion up with scientific proof.

Grow up and learn to admit you are wrong sometimes. People tend to respect you more when you do that.

I do when I'm wrong. Please stop copping out and attempting to change the subject.

Can you make a machine that can create a wormhole which transports matter? Yes? Do it then. No? Then you don't understand the technology behind such a machine.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Premise 1-All 'A's' are 'B's'.

Premise 2-I am holding a 'B'.

Conclusion- I am holding an 'A'.

You've already updated this in a later post in response to Taffer, so that is all cool.

Premise 1- All Dogs are mammals. (Fact)

Premise 2- I am petting a Dog. (Fact)

Conclusion- I am petting a mammal. (Fact)


Logically valid inductive argument. Proof I am petting a mammal.

Yes, your argument here is correct (and the updated A's and B's one is correct too), and, as noted, deductive.

However, none of these arguments can be used to prove that a god of some sort, let alone the christian definition of a god, actually can exist.

I'll ask you again - please present some of these new arguments you claim to have uncovered. We can't discuss the logical basis of these arguments without knowing what they actually are!

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Why did this god-creature stop with the magic? And how come it stopped as us humans developed a better understanding of the world (i.e. science and the scientific method).

I don't know. I'm just saying that assuming a God exists we would not necessarily expect him to be performing miracles left and right.

Stop time completely? In a set area? I'd like to see that.

So would I.

That's my point, Dustin!! For a god of some sort to actually exist all these demons and angels and elementals and fairies and dragons have to exist as well.

Why?

Dustin, no technology, no matter how advanced, can bring a person back from being over 200 years dead. Even extremely advanced technology is still limited by the laws of nature. The best you could hope for in this case is recording brain waves, such as in "Altered Carbon" - see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_Carbon
and that's still not what I am talking about when I say "Resurrection"!

Except our comprehension of the natural laws of the universe will likely be drastically different in 1,000 years.

Regardless of how advanced technology gets, it is still bound by the limitations of science. Some things just are never going to work, no matter how we imagine them. The laws of physics never stated that aeroplanes couldn't fly, humans just didn't understand enough of the workings of these laws to make a conclusive judgment either way.

The laws of physics as understood centuries past would probably have stated that an object dozens of tones in weight could never fly.

Taking an empty skull and bringing the owner of that skull back to life will never be possible with any form of technology. We may one day be able to extract DNA from that skull and regrow the physical body, complete and new, but the person will be a clone, and will have a different personality than the original, with none of the original's memory. Opening a Gate to the Elemental Plane of Fire, and summoning forth an Efreeti Lord will also never be possible, because the Elemental Plane of Fire and Efreeti Lords simply do not exist!

Without getting into the discussion of what's technologically possible thousands of years into the future let's assume you're right. So what? So advanced technology can't do such a thing. This doesn't mean that a "God" is the only feasible being who could. Maybe some sorcerer or wizard could do such a thing in our hypothetical and such a phenomena occurring wouldn't necessarly prove a God.

Even basic magic, like seeing the future, talking to the dead, remote viewing, telekinesis or mind reading do not work today. Technology might eventually duplicate some of these effects, but some of them will remain forever out of the reach of technology.

I'm not saying that magic proves that a god-creature exists. It's required for a god-concept to exist. Without magic, these beings can not exist. You have to show magic works first, then we can discuss whether or not a god of some sort exists.

Maybe "Magic" exists and maybe God is the only one who can do it right now. Maybe if you see "Magic" it's not from God but from some being who has gained such powers but isn't "God". The fact is, "Magic" wouldn't necessarily prove a God.

So let me ask again. What proof would you accept for "God"? Is there any? Is there none?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

But you're "shooting down" reasons for being atheist. You're not fooling anyone. I know you're trying to convince people that your god exists.

No I'm not.

Great, this indeed valid logic. Now then, what do you plug in for 'A' and 'B' that has to do with God?

I'm just saying that logically valid arguments who's premise are factual can be proof of something.

 

[Taffer]

Explain the origin of the Universe through naturalistic means.

The Big Bang is the current theory which has the most evidence to support it.

Premise 1 is false.

Do you have evidence, or is it just because you say so?

What evidence? Specifically.

If evidence was found that could only be explained through a god-hypothesis, then I would be forced to change my opinion.

Is there evidence to the contrary of a "God"?

No. There is a lack of evidence for the existance of God, however, and I do not believe things which lack evidence.

 

[Taffer]

Sorry. Let me rephrase it.

All 'A's' are 'B's' and all 'B's' are 'A's'

I am holding a 'B'.

Therefore I am holding an 'A'.

You're right about that.

Sorry, just noticed this. That is indeed valid.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The Big Bang is the current theory which has the most evidence to support it.

Explain the origin of the Big bang.

Do you have evidence, or is it just because you say so?

You made the claim. You say that IF a God existed there would be evidence for a God. Please show this to be true. It's logically possible a God could exist yet no evidence supports such a God existing.

If evidence was found that could only be explained through a god-hypothesis, then I would be forced to change my opinion.

What evidence? Give an example.

No. There is a lack of evidence for the existance of God, however, and I do not believe things which lack evidence.

Why?

 

[dglas]

You can "prove" anything logically with the right axiom set. Proving something logically is no guarantee of truth. Logic is merely a set of rules of inference to reach conclusions validly. They indicate internal consistency only and do not provide new content. Period.

You folks are hitting upon the idea of verifiable in principle which is rather an important one. There are two ways in which something may be impossible to verify.
(1) It is incorrect;
(2) It is stipulated (defined) such that verification simply does not apply to it.

To say that something is not at this time or place verifiable is not the same as saying that something is unverifiable in principle. Verifiable in principle means that we can easily imagine the means and circumstances under which that something can be verified according to the recognized means of verification.

The features of the dark side of the moon were not verifiable until fairly recently, however that they were verifiable in principle is easily understood.

God is not verifiable/refutable in principle. It is defined such that empirical verification/refutation simply does not apply. There's another word for that: meaningless.

With respect to the OP: doubt is not denial.

 

[D'rok]

I'm just saying that logically valid arguments who's premise are factual can be proof of something.

You must have missed the Dawkins thread about this very thing.

A deductively valid argument with true premises is sound...but only within a closed system of logic with a set of clearly defined rules. For this kind of argument to have any relevance to the god question, you would have to be able to accurately model the entire universe within your rule-set.

Ironically, if you can do this, you will have answered the god question already because you will be functionally equivalent to a god.

 

[nescafe]

You could build a computer out of raw materials but don't possess the "skills" needed to build one? What skills? Don't you mean the knowledge to put it together?

Yes. Roughly, the difference between theory and practice. Knowledge of the technology is the theory, the lessons learned actually trying to implement that knowledge is the practice.

Can you make a machine that can create a wormhole which transports matter?

Right now? No, I cannot. Give me some negative mass or a rapidly spinning ring singularity and I will see what i can do. It may take a few decades, though.

I backed that assertion up with scientific proof.

If by "scientific proof" you mean blurb on Yahoo News (which has since vanished -- MSNBC copy of story here) and stupid copy and paste stunts -- I do not recall you ever providing a link to the actual paper or indicating that you ever read it.

 

[Taffer]

Explain the origin of the Big bang.

Impossible to know. If God caused the big bang, it has no effect on the nature of the universe.

You made the claim. You say that IF a God existed there would be evidence for a God. Please show this to be true. It's logically possible a God could exist yet no evidence supports such a God existing.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Apologies, I should have said "If we are to show that God exists".

What evidence? Give an example.

An event which breaks all known natural laws, and always breaks known natural laws in the future.

Why?

Because it is the only way to know anything about the universe.

 

[PixyMisa]

Arguments can be evidence if the premises used in the arguments are factual.

No, that's not right.

You start with the premise, proceed through the argument, and arrive at a conclusion. Having established that conclusion, you can use it as the premise to a new argument.

The argument itself is not evidence. Unless you can establish the premise to the satisfaction of your audience, no argument is worth so much as a stale peanut.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

I don't know. I'm just saying that assuming a God exists we would not necessarily expect him to be performing miracles left and right.

Why not? That's the christian god's forte. It's what he/she/it does every second of the day, according to the majority of christians.

Why?

It's expected. It's magic.

Except our comprehension of the natural laws of the universe will likely be drastically different in 1,000 years.

Regardless of our level of understanding, there is a very simple, unchangeable biological fact here - human memory is contained within the brain. If the brain is destroyed, that memory is lost. Unless we can write that memory to an external storage space, like in Altered Carbon, we can not recover that memory at all. And that won't change in 1,000 years, one million years or five billion billion billion billion years.

The laws of physics as understood centuries past would probably have stated that an object dozens of tones in weight could never fly.

The laws of physics do not change over time.

Without getting into the discussion of what's technologically possible thousands of years into the future let's assume you're right. So what? So advanced technology can't do such a thing. This doesn't mean that a "God" is the only feasible being who could. Maybe some sorcerer or wizard could do such a thing in our hypothetical and such a phenomena occurring wouldn't necessarly prove a God.

Maybe "Magic" exists and maybe God is the only one who can do it right now. Maybe if you see "Magic" it's not from God but from some being who has gained such powers but isn't "God". The fact is, "Magic" wouldn't necessarily prove a God.

So let me ask again. What proof would you accept for "God"? Is there any? Is there none?

As I have been saying, the existence of magic does not prove that a god creature of some sort exists, it's just a prerequisite.

Once magic exists, and works, well then, it's easy to prove a god-being of some sort exists. Use one of the following:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commune.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAllyLesser.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAllyGreater.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/miracle.htm
any of those require the direct intercession of a deity.

Use one of these:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planeShift.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm
and go and talk with the deity directly.

Of course, this is all DnD-centric. Other magical systems may lack these spells, or spells equivalent to these. However, there are still magical ways of contacting a god, generally along the lines of the Commune spell, which is basically a divination effect requiring direct deity intervention. So you could simply cast a spell and ask them.

Cheers,
TGHO