Question for believers in a God

[billydkid]

Suppose there were a parallel universe identical to our's in every detail and respect with the single exception that there is no God. In what way would this universe be distinguishable from our own? Or another question - what does it mean for there to be a "God" is "God" is undetectable?

 

[billydkid]

I mean't

What does it me for there to be a "God" IF "God" is undetectable?

 

[hammegk]

Suppose there were a parallel universe identical to our's in every detail and respect with the single exception that there is no God.

For someone who accepts the existence of god, this supposition is meaningless.

In what way would this universe be distinguishable from our own?

By its' non-existence.

Or another question - what does it mean for there to be a "God" if "God" is undetectable?

What in Ed's name is an "undectectable god"?

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Question for believers in a God

For someone who accepts the existence of god, this supposition is meaningless.

Why does the existence of one reality negate the existence of another? If they are two completely seperate realities, then one cannot have any control or knowledge of the other reality (by definition).

By its' non-existence.

By non-existence, if you mean not existing as any part of the reality that god is a part of, then that would be correct. But that does not prevent it from existing as a seperate reality.

What in Ed's name is an "undectectable god"?

A god that, if that god suddenly ceased to exist or suddenly ceased to interact with the universe, nothing would be differenet.

 

[Cleopatra]

In what way would this universe be distinguishable from our own? Or another question -

I believe or hope that in this hypothetical parallel universe wouldn't exist individuals that pose idiotic questions about God.

Do you know the joke with the old man who was going to the drug store and he was buying condoms and dramamines?

If it makes you dizzy maybe you should consider not to think about it....

 

[billydkid]

Re: Re: Question for believers in a God

I believe or hope that in this hypothetical parallel universe wouldn't exist individuals that pose idiotic questions about God.

Do you know the joke with the old man who was going to the drug store and he was buying condoms and dramamines?

If it makes you dizzy maybe you should consider not to think about it....

Jeeze Cleo, you are hurting my feelings. Must be I hurt your's somehow. Maybe you are just a very sensitive person. Actually it doesn't make me dizzy. Hammy asked what on earth is an undetectable god. An undetectable god is a god you can not detect. This is a god who's existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence - in short, a god just like every one of the gods worshiped by human beings. How can it mean anything to talk about such a god existing? He also didn't like my parallel universe thing. But there is absolutely nothing in the character of our universe which requires a god at all.

I might add, unless a person has direct personal interaction with god (an annointing as they say in some circles) any notion a person has of god is hearsay. And even if one is hearing from god directly there are all sorts of complicating issues which would render that communcation suspect. One obvious illustration would be the likes of Jim Jones who felt sure he was doing god's bidding.

 

[Cleopatra]

Come-on I didn't hurt your feelings and you didn't hurt mine. You want believers in God to respond seriously in a question that involves a parallel universe.

If you have no difficulty in using the possibility of the existence of a parallel universe in order to demonstrate that God doesn't exist I wonder why you have ANY difficulty in believing in God...

 

[Ipecac]

You want believers in God to respond seriously in a question that involves a parallel universe.

Why not? Are they exempt?

 

[Gestahl]

If you have no difficulty in using the possibility of the existence of a parallel universe in order to demonstrate that God doesn't exist I wonder why you have ANY difficulty in believing in God...

Ah yes, because he can pose hypothetical questions to illustrate a point, with the knowledge that his hypothetical creations have no basis in reality, he obviously must be able to take hypothetical constructs and will himself to insert them into his view of reality with no evidence.

 

[Cleopatra]

Ah yes, because he can pose hypothetical questions to illustrate a point, with the knowledge that his hypothetical creations have no basis in reality, he obviously must be able to take hypothetical constructs and will himself to insert them into his view of reality with no evidence.

I think that I have finally spotted from what the majority of the lovely and dear forumites suffer; they don't know where to stop and they confuse liberalism, skepticism et cetera with ... shall I say trolling?

I wonder who has told you that there are no limits in building up and sketching hypothetical questions. I wonder who has told you that hypothetical questions should lack logic?

If you were a dog would you know how to prove that God doesn't exist?

Answer me to that hypothetical question, please.

 

[hammegk]

As a (rather poor) analogy, and from the viewpoint of objective idealism:

What is being proposed makes no more sense than saying here we have a pile -- 1 lb of salt. Now hypothisize a 1 lb pile of salt, but there is no salt in the pile.

Is there some neat name for the fallacy of posing hypotheticals that pre-suppose the correctness of the argument they purport to address?

 

[Gestahl]

Suppose there were a parallel universe identical to our's in every detail and respect with the single exception that there is no God. In what way would this universe be distinguishable from our own? Or another question - what does it mean for there to be a "God" is "God" is undetectable?

What if this parallel universe had no "love", but only enlightened self-interest, efficiency of living, and a recognition that we must procreate, along with some chemicals that make you feel a little funny and get your parts working?

Be careful how you use this argument, you can eliminate many useful concepts that, while they might not have a physical existence, are useful things to have a name for since they represent a meaning over and above the meaning of its parts for us.

God is simply the convenient label that we use for "all that is (good)"... the last word inserted/omitted based on which religion. It is a shame we attribute so many stupid things to that concept.

 

[Gestahl]

Is there some neat name for the fallacy of posing hypotheticals that pre-suppose the correctness of the argument they purport to address?

Does this sentence qualify as a member of that fallacious group?
(I think it does)?

Answer: MU

In case you are not being faceitious, and for others who might not know, this is begging the question.

I also call it a MU-question... I can refuse to answer the question because of the grounds on which it is phrased.

 

[Gestahl]

I think that I have finally spotted from what the majority of the lovely and dear forumites suffer; they don't know where to stop and they confuse liberalism, skepticism et cetera with ... shall I say trolling?

Prove to me there is a fool-proof way to tell the difference: it ain't easy. It was a serious, though condescending and sarcastic, reply. You were acting like a troll. I was making sure no one glossed over and accepted your statements at face value.

Troll.

I wonder who has told you that there are no limits in building up and sketching hypothetical questions. I wonder who has told you that hypothetical questions should lack logic?

Then you should have been specific and productive to the discussion in your post, rather than make a broad generalization. And there are no limits, and hypothetical questions can certainly lack logic. How useful these questions are, is another matter entirely.

If you were a dog would you know how to prove that God doesn't exist?
Answer me to that hypothetical question, please. [/B]

The answer as to whether God does or does not exist is fundamentally unanswerable. That question is useless, just not for the reasons you think it is ;-).

Troll.

/now I'm trolling (or am I?)

 

[billydkid]

Re: Re: Question for believers in a God

God is simply the convenient label that we use for "all that is (good)"... the last word inserted/omitted based on which religion. It is a shame we attribute so many stupid things to that concept.

That simply is not true. That may be your conception of God, but it certainly does not constitute God in the eyes of most believers. I know you are familiar with the notion of a "personal God" - and expression widely used by evangelicals and such and which specifically designates God as personal entity, a creature, a "person".

 

[hammegk]

Answer: MU

137 .... or 42

 

[Beleth]

When I have my Deist hat on, I usually envision the universe as analogous to a clay pot, and God as the potter.

The potter makes a pot and then uses it in accordance with the purpose for which he made it. Put it on a shelf, cook soup in it, whatever.

There is no part of (the sentience of) the potter in the pot. They are two entirely separated entities, but the pot is entirely dependent on the potter for its existence. The pot has no knowledge of the potter, since they don't interact, but there was a time before the pot existed that the potter existed.

Billydkid's question, using this analogy, becomes "Suppose there were a second pot, just like the one we are in, with the single exception that no potter made it." In that sense, the absurdity (no offense intended) of the question becomes more apparent, I think, and hammegk's response becomes less abrasive.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Re: Re: Re: Question for believers in a God

Why does the existence of one reality negate the existence of another? If they are two completely seperate realities, then one cannot have any control or knowledge of the other reality (by definition).

Woop see there? Your negating the idea of omnipocence. "God" can't be just god in one reality but has to by definition cut a wide swath across ANY universe , or else he ain't God HERITIC!

 

[billydkid]

But

When I have my Deist hat on, I usually envision the universe as analogous to a clay pot, and God as the potter.

The potter makes a pot and then uses it in accordance with the purpose for which he made it. Put it on a shelf, cook soup in it, whatever.

There is no part of (the sentience of) the potter in the pot. They are two entirely separated entities, but the pot is entirely dependent on the potter for its existence. The pot has no knowledge of the potter, since they don't interact, but there was a time before the pot existed that the potter existed.

Billydkid's question, using this analogy, becomes "Suppose there were a second pot, just like the one we are in, with the single exception that no potter made it." In that sense, the absurdity (no offense intended) of the question becomes more apparent, I think, and hammegk's response becomes less abrasive.

Your premise is that anything which exists must have been created. I'm sure you know where that leads. Who made the potter? If you take the deist approach where the universe was set in motion by a creator and let be then you are certainly not talking about the God most Americans worship - either the feared retributive version or the kindly granddaddy/santa clause in the sky. If you define God as he who created the universe and nothing more how does that pertain to the practical reality of the living God we hear so much about? And what about this Jesus Christ character so many folks are inclined to devote their emotional lives to. He is supposed to be alive too. We should be clear about this - whatever fuzzy, vague, comforting notion people may have of some kindly overseer who looks after his children - the western notion of God comes from the old testament and that God has very particular attributes, not a single one of which do we see at work in the world around us.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Re: But

Your premise is that anything which exists must have been created. I'm sure you know where that leads. Who made the potter? If you take the deist approach where the universe was set in motion by a creator and let be then you are certainly not talking about the God most Americans worship - either the feared retributive version or the kindly granddaddy/santa clause in the sky. If you define God as he who created the universe and nothing more how does that pertain to the practical reality of the living God we hear so much about? And what about this Jesus Christ character so many folks are inclined to devote their emotional lives to. He is supposed to be alive too. We should be clear about this - whatever fuzzy, vague, comforting notion people may have of some kindly overseer who looks after his children - the western notion of God comes from the old testament and that God has very particular attributes, not a single one of which do we see at work in the world around us.

Well, I think the reductio ad absurdum explanation in the quoted passage above is more saleable to a theist. What Beleth was trying to say—and I agree with this—is that the other argument wouldn't work because the theist would write off its premise as being an impossibility because our universe is supposedly dependent on a god to exist in the first place. You'd just inevitably go back to the infinite chain of creators argument—which is sufficient on its own—and the other one would just become superfluous.