Maybe we CAN disprove God...

[EGarrett]

No I'm not, I'm asking questions. That's why I used question marks.

You present an argument that assumes a specific answer to that question. A specific answer that no one is giving.

 

[The Atheist]

...then you're arguing on behalf of nonsense and against any understanding. Within the context of reasoning (where disproof, impossibility and logic all operate), this God is impossible and thus validly disproven.

There you go, discussion over. EGarrett clearly has studied every bit of the universe and knows all of the answers. Case closed.

That was easy.

Next...

 

[The Atheist]

Then please show me the specific post by Piggy that consists purely of logical fallacies.

What are you talking about?

Are you still in the high-school debating team, honey? If you want to argue logical fallacies, go find someone who gives a crap.

Piggy's answer was a series of assertions backed by no evidence at all.

Grow up, for god's sake.

 

[tsg]

I understand. The problem is that you're referring to something that we've observed and studied on earth. You're borrowing the idea of intelligence from the brain, and then trying to redefine it so that it fits God.

Well, I'm afraid I can only communicate ideas by relating them in terms of my experience.

(if we're talking about God as an intelligence throughout the universe)

I don't believe I made any such claim.

Intelligence carries with it certain structures, (synapses etc.) and attributes (electrical activity) that we can observe and measure. There is no such thing in any form in the universe as we observe it. Therefore this 'intelligence' is impossible given everything we know and have observed.

I also made no claim as to the form the intelligence takes. Assuming that our brain structure is the only possible way to get intelligence is not a valid assumption of god.

This argument invalidates any possible understanding.

I don't see how. There are currently theoretical physicists working on the idea that our universe may not be the only one. For instance, M-theory says that there are 6 (or 7 depending on who you ask) dimensions outside of our perception. There is no requirement in my definition that god be restricted to the four dimensions our universe occupies.

Impossible still means "it cannot happen or is not true within the context of all observations and reasoning." That's what you mean when you say something is impossible.

Except there is nothing in my definition of god that requires him to exist within the context of our observations and reasoning, so the definition of "impossible" does not apply.

If you refer to an alternate place where no rules need apply

I didn't say no rules. I said he isn't bound by the rules of this universe.

 

[The Atheist]

Well, I'm afraid I can only communicate ideas by relating them in terms of my experience.

Doing a damned fine job so far, excellent last few posts.

 

[EGarrett]

What are you talking about?

You claimed that the standard of proof you used in your post was the same standard that Piggy used in the "proof" you were replying to. In that case, since your post consisted of nothing but fallacious logic, then you should show me the post of his that was similar.

Are you still in the high-school debating team, honey? If you want to argue logical fallacies, go find someone who gives a crap.

Piggy's answer was a series of assertions backed by no evidence at all.

Grow up, for god's sake.

Yeah, I know, understanding logic and reason is SOOOO uncool.

Nonetheless, whether it's cool or mature or not doesn't make fallacious reasoning valid. Your post is still wrong no matter what the flaws are of the person telling you so.

I also suggest that you leave a critical thinking forum and thread if you don't like the idea of having to use valid reasoning.

There you go, discussion over. EGarrett clearly has studied every bit of the universe and knows all of the answers. Case closed.

That was easy.

I'm sure it did seem easy. Punching down strawmen usually is. I never said any of that.

 

[The Atheist]

Excellent, another one.

You claimed that the standard of proof you used in your post was the same standard that Piggy used in the "proof" you were replying to. In that case, since your post consisted of nothing but fallacious logic, then you should show me the post of his that was similar.

I'll put it all in simple words so you can follow it.

Piggy's post was assertion plus no evidence.

Mine was similar.

Yeah, I know, understanding logic and reason is SOOOO uncool.

No, logic and reason are excellent. Playing high-school games is well in my past.

Nonetheless, whether it's cool or mature or not doesn't make fallacious reasoning valid. Your post is still wrong no matter what the flaws are of the person telling you so.

You write that as though I care what you think.

Hint: I don't.

I also suggest that you leave a critical thinking forum and thread if you don't like the idea of having to use valid reasoning.

I'm sure it did seem easy. Punching down strawmen usually is. I never said any of that.

Make a stupid assertion, get a stupid strawman in return.

How old are you? 21? 22?

I repeat.

Grow up.

 

[EGarrett]

Well, I'm afraid I can only communicate ideas by relating them in terms of my experience.

Absolutley. We must use those terms to reason and discuss...and within those very terms, the concept we're discussing is impossible.

I don't believe I made any such claim.

As I said, I'm not sure if you're saying that the intelligence exists throughout the universe or what.

But nonetheless, you didn't set out any terms for where or how the intelligence of this God exists. Obviously, if you don't do so, then you claim you didn't make a certain claim when it is disproven or challenged, then you're falling right back into definition shifting.

Please correct my assumption about what intelligence you are trying to assign to God, then let's be consistent after that.

I also made no claim as to the form the intelligence takes. Assuming that our brain structure is the only possible way to get intelligence is not a valid assumption of god.

But that is intelligence as we understand it. We have seen literally no other possible type. If you try to posit an intelligence that ignores that, then you're changing the definition of intelligence so that it can be applied to God...and again we're slipping back into nonsense.

I don't see how. There are currently theoretical physicists working on the idea that our universe may not be the only one. For instance, M-theory says that there are 6 (or 7 depending on who you ask) dimensions outside of our perception. There is no requirement in my definition that god be restricted to the four dimensions our universe occupies.

There are still specific properties and attributes to those 6 or 7 dimensions, that's part of what makes them a consistent concept that can be evaluated. What you're putting forth is not a specific concept, but a catch-all that has no actual properties so that this "God" creator can exist with whatever form he may need to be undisprovable. It is not an alternate form of reasoning that has claims that can be evaluated and challenged, it is an argument that seeks to remove reasoning and any type of evaluation.

Except there is nothing in my definition of god that requires him to exist within the context of our observations and reasoning, so the definition of "impossible" does not apply.

Absolutely. But if we then agree that this 'God' is impossible in the same way that 1 + 1 = 3 is impossible, then we also agree that this God has been fairly disproven to the full extent that anything can be disproven.

I didn't say no rules. I said he isn't bound by the rules of this universe.

I think what I said above about invalidating reasoning might also cover this.

 

[EGarrett]

Excellent, another one.

I'll put it all in simple words so you can follow it.

Piggy's post was assertion plus no evidence.

Mine was similar.

Piggy's post was assertion backed by logic. Your position was assertion backed by fallacious logic. In other words, nothing at all.

No, logic and reason are excellent. Playing high-school games is well in my past.

You write that as though I care what you think.

Hint: I don't.



Make a stupid assertion, get a stupid strawman in return.

How old are you? 21? 22?

I repeat.

Grow up.

Post reported. I have no patience for this. I'm going to ask you politely to leave my thread, as it's obvious you have nothing more to add.

 

[tsg]

Absolutley. We must use those terms to reason and discuss...and within those very terms, the concept we're discussing is impossible.

I have yet to see how.

As I said, I'm not sure if you're saying that the intelligence exists throughout the universe or what.

But nonetheless, you didn't set out any terms for where or how the intelligence of this God exists. Obviously, if you don't do so, then you claim you didn't make a certain claim when it is disproven or challenged, then you're falling right back into definition shifting.

Please correct my assumption about what intelligence you are trying to assign to God, then let's be consistent after that.

The ability to observe, learn and make decisions based on those observations.

Imagine a two dimensional plane of existence containing beings. These beings are only capable of perceiving in left, right, forward, and backward; or north, south, east and west if you prefer. The universe, from their perception, is limited to that plane of existence.

Now imagine a three dimensional being who is outside that plane, observing it from above. He is intelligent by our normal conception of what constitutes "intelligence". He can interact with that plane and is not subject to the laws of that plane. His intelligence exists entirely outside that plane even though he is capable of observing it. His existence is entirely outside that plane even though he can interact with it.

The two dimensional beings cannot perceive this three dimensional being because, from their perception, he exists outside their universe. They have no concept of "above" in which things may exist. They cannot perceive the structure containing his intelligence because it also exists outside their universe. The three dimensional being is constrained by the laws of his three dimensional universe, but not by the laws of the two dimensional universe. For example, he can make objects move from one point to another without passing any point in between in that plane simply by lifting them up and putting them down somewhere else. To the occupants of the plane this is impossible by everything they know.

Add a couple of dimensions to that example and that is the concept of god I am arguing.

But that is intelligence as we understand it. We have seen literally no other possible type.

That does not imply that there can be no other types.

If you try to posit an intelligence that ignores that, then you're changing the definition of intelligence so that it can be applied to God...and again we're slipping back into nonsense.

Not at all. It simply implies a structure of intelligence we are not capable of perceiving.

There are still specific properties and attributes to those 6 or 7 dimensions, that's part of what makes them a consistent concept that can be evaluated. What you're putting forth is not a specific concept, but a catch-all that has no actual properties so that this "God" creator can exist with whatever form he may need to be undisprovable. It is not an alternate form of reasoning that has claims that can be evaluated and challenged, it is an argument that seeks to remove reasoning and any type of evaluation.

Not at all. See my example above.

Absolutely. But if we then agree that this 'God' is impossible in the same way that 1 + 1 = 3 is impossible, then we also agree that this God has been fairly disproven to the full extent that anything can be disproven.

But we haven't agreed to that at all.

 

[The Atheist]

Post reported. I have no patience for this. I'm going to ask you politely to leave my thread, as it's obvious you have nothing more to add.

I shall continue my discussion with Piggy when he returns so don't get your hopes up.

"Teacher!!, WAAAAAAAAA......."

 

[Vintij]

You're misunderstanding. The universe doesn't have to be expanding into anything. Space itself could be expanding and growing.

This example might help...you can walk around the surface of a balloon infinitely. As a two-dimensional space, there is no beginning or end to its surface. But that surface can expand also.

The misunderstanding of the universe's expansion has short-circuited your reasoning.

People who like to question science almost always turn out to only be misunderstanding what it's saying. No offense.

Who said it existed forever? The idea of time itself may break down at the point, if time and space are related.

Now you're just changing the definition of God for your own convenience, and once again we are descending into nonsense.

The problem with you, like many others in the past. Is you seem to think that science today is all knowing and is the ultimate knowledge of everything. Which I dissagree with. You speak to me and others as though science at this very point can not be debunked, and your right, so was plato....and so was aristotle in showing that the world is the center of the universe at that time. You are like these two, in believing so much in current science that you do not open the door to what might be the next discovery in astrophysics.

So to say that anyone is speaking nonsense, would be nonsense in itself because it claims that to make sense, you must believe in science as it is today, which I do but I do not believe it is the ultimate answer, I believe we are a Looooong way from finding out things that we probably will within the next century.

You put far to much faith on the current human mind. I think that with the coming of technology, the universe itself will be proven to be one of many different dimensions in which "outside" of it....is common.

 

[CapelDodger]

Please, I'm the bloke who wrote the essay entitled, Philosophy, the Art of Bull####! As the saying goes, even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

But Philosophers simply will not stop. My preferred analogy involves holes, being in one, and digging. Philosophy (stealing a line here) is so useless it's not even wrong.

(Felinfoel Bitter with a sherry chaser for Rowan.)

 

[CapelDodger]

And yes it is expanding, maybe "into" is not the best way to describe it because it is not converting anything, that we know of....but the fact is....its expanding.....and whatever is outside of it, must be getting slightly smaller. That is where my theory of god lies.

God has shown definite signs of shrinkage over the ages, so you have that going for you, but (quite apart from anything else) you run into infinity problems unless you postulate that what's outside the Universe is finite in extent. The infinite does not get smaller when some of it is taken away. Counter-intuitive, but true none the less.

Infinity is far more interesting than any god.

 

[CapelDodger]

The problem with you, like many others in the past. Is you seem to think that science today is all knowing and is the ultimate knowledge of everything.

It may seem that way to you, but it ain't actually so. Science is a process, and its objective is to increase our understanding of reality. It's being doing a damn' fine job for centuries now, while religion has been in constant retreat and philosophy has descended to semantic nit-picking and solipsism.

Science has the potential to explain everything - reality itself, the why and the wherefore. That's a commonly held opinion; it's mine and, I suspect, EGarrett's.

 

[Vintij]

It may seem that way to you, but it ain't actually so. Science is a process, and its objective is to increase our understanding of reality. It's being doing a damn' fine job for centuries now, while religion has been in constant retreat and philosophy has descended to semantic nit-picking and solipsism.

Science has the potential to explain everything - reality itself, the why and the wherefore. That's a commonly held opinion; it's mine and, I suspect, EGarrett's.

I completely agree with you, but the current generation (to me) is not living up to the generations of the galileos and the Einsteins and the Newtons. Perhaps it is because no major theorys from the past have been debunked or improved upon lately. I really believe that science will someday post the true theory of everything, but I also believe that religious people and some skeptics are similar in the ways that they both constantly bicker about proof and who is right or wrong. I personally believe it all to be one of those things that will be proven in the future but not in any way that these two types of people predicted. It is stubborness that resulted in catholic domination, I really dont want it to be stubborness that results in psuedo proof that god does not exist and the universe is infinite. Because it puts us thinkers in the same boat as the religious obsessiveness that dominated science in the past. Even Einstein admitted he was wrong with his initial spacetime theory, and he later proved Newtons equations would still hold up today but are more complex than we once thought.

If this kind of discovery happend just 90 years go, why do we have to close the door on ambigous theorys about infinity and singularitys.

Im not saying that god exists and is watching us in an ivory tower, im saying the door should always stay open when talking about finite universes, and multiple dimensions outside of spacetime. Thats all. That has nothing to do with god, but it is something that skepitcs like to shoot down.

 

[The Atheist]

Philosophy (stealing a line here) is so useless it's not even wrong.

Excellent! Where does that quote come from?

(Felinfoel Bitter with a sherry chaser for Rowan.)

He's the only bloke I could think of who could possibly be described as a "lovely man".

You know some Anglicans disapprove of him?

No pleasing some people.

 

[The Atheist]

It may seem that way to you, but it ain't actually so. Science is a process, and its objective is to increase our understanding of reality. It's being doing a damn' fine job for centuries now, while religion has been in constant retreat and philosophy has descended to semantic nit-picking and solipsism.

Science has the potential to explain everything - reality itself, the why and the wherefore. That's a commonly held opinion; it's mine and, I suspect, EGarrett's.

Certainly my opinion as well. I just don't think we're quite there yet, and the theological questions are the only remaining ones - as far as I can tell. I think what EG's problem is, he thinks the train's already at the station.

Personally, there are still a few issues where more answers are needed. The CERN collider may answer some of them, neuroscience may answer others. I don't look at it as religion even having the benefit of the doubt at the moment, more a case of when I burn their sacred cows, I want them to know damned well that there's no escape. At the moment, there are a few holes they can slither into.

Piggy reckons he can caulk them up already. I'm waiting with bated breath.

 

[EGarrett]

I shall continue my discussion with Piggy when he returns so don't get your hopes up.

"Teacher!!, WAAAAAAAAA......."

In other words, you have absolutely no comeback to anything said to you.

 

[EGarrett]

The problem with you, like many others in the past. Is you seem to think that science today is all knowing and is the ultimate knowledge of everything. Which I dissagree with.

Strawman.

There may be many things that exist that we don't know about. But that doesn't mean that completely nonsensical arguments will one day turn out to be true.

You speak to me and others as though science at this very point can not be debunked, and your right, so was plato....and so was aristotle in showing that the world is the center of the universe at that time. You are like these two, in believing so much in current science that you do not open the door to what might be the next discovery in astrophysics.

There are many things science doesn't know. But what science doesn't know are all the explanations behind everything we observe. Science doesn't have to make up explanations for nonsense concepts, or things that we can't observe and that have no effect whatsoever on the universe because for all intents and purposes, they don't exist. And you cannot put forth any ideas about these things UNTIL we observe some aspect or reasoning behind them.

Do you see what I'm saying? If not let me know, because this is important.

So to say that anyone is speaking nonsense, would be nonsense in itself because it claims that to make sense, you must believe in science as it is today, which I do but I do not believe it is the ultimate answer, I believe we are a Looooong way from finding out things that we probably will within the next century.

No, to make sense you must terms that have actual meanings. If you change the meaning of a term at will, it is the textbook definition of nonsense. (words that have no sense or meaning)

You put far to much faith on the current human mind. I think that with the coming of technology, the universe itself will be proven to be one of many different dimensions in which "outside" of it....is common.

That's fine. But that will still happen through actual consistent reasoning and study and observation. Not nonsense or irrationality.