Question for believers in a God

[Kimpatsu]

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?

An omnipotent creator would have to be the creator of the multiverse, not merely one or more universes within it.

 

[Beleth]

Re: But

Your premise is that anything which exists must have been created. I'm sure you know where that leads.

No it isn't, and yes I do.

Who made the potter?

The potter is entirely outside of the pot's sphere of knowledge.

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.

Granted.

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?

I cannot speak for those who believe in that interpretation of God.

The rest of your post I can't argue with.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Re: Re: But

The potter is entirely outside of the pot's sphere of knowledge.

That doesn't answer the question of who made he potter. For, if the potter didn't require a creator, then neither did the pot.

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: But

That doesn't answer the question of who made he potter. For, if the potter didn't require a creator, then neither did the pot.

Non sequitur.

Since we, as the pot, don't - can't - know anything about the potter, it is useless to speculate about any of His properties, including whether He needed a creator of His own or not.

It's like arguing over what kind of clay the potter is made out of.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: But

Non sequitur.

Since we, as the pot, don't - can't - know anything about the potter, it is useless to speculate about any of His properties, including whether He needed a creator of His own or not.

It's like arguing over what kind of clay the potter is made out of.

Not at all; you're engaging in special pleading, which is a logical fallacy.
BTW, I am not a pot. I am sentient.

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

Not at all; you're engaging in special pleading, which is a logical fallacy.

Special pleading is only a fallacy when there is inadequate justification for the exemption.

BTW, I am not a pot. I am sentient.

And you're not made of clay, and you can't be used to cook soup in. Analogies are used to make a concept clearer, not to provide an exact mirror of a situation.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

Special pleading is only a fallacy when there is inadequate justification for the exemption.

Just as there is inadequate justification in this case; you're claiming that we are too stupid to understand god's will. First, however, you would have to prove that there is a god, and that this god did indeed create the multiverse. Only then will you be in a position to make your original claim. As no god is required to explain the existence of the multiverse, or of life, however, you are going to have your work cut out for you.

And you're not made of clay, and you can't be used to cook soup in. Analogies are used to make a concept clearer, not to provide an exact mirror of a situation.

But your analogy is fundamentally flawed. A pot is incapable of cogitation, and hence of reasoning. I, however, am capable of both. A pot is not in a position to understand its potter because it cannot think; as I can think I am indeed in a position to understand my origins.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I get the feeling everyone's dancing around the issue billydkid wants to address. Maybe not though, so billy, fell free to correct me.

I read the original question as: "In what way does God exist to us if his/her/its existence, as Beleth stated, is outside our sphere of knowledge"?
Believing in a God then merely becomes disbelief of a universe that exists just because it happens to.

I know I prefer the null hypothesis.

 

[hammegk]

I know I prefer the null hypothesis.

Agnosticism seems sensible, until you notice that dualism of some sort must be involved.

 

[Beerina]

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.

Are you suggesting God can't make a stand-alone universe? One that can exist without him existing to substantiate it? How dare you! God can do anything!

 

[Gestahl]

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

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".

That just means they place more emphasis on themelves than the world around them. I find that previous observation true of most religions with a "personal God."

I am not saying they *think* and *believe* that God is the universe, they just add another level on top of physical reality to explain it (even themselves and their relation to him), while they can't actually perceive it.

Think of these various translations of what I hear people say, and how I perceive them in my philosophy.

"God sends signs."

Meaning: I try and make coherent, personal sense of what I observe in the Universe by invoking God.

"God has a plan."

Meaning: I ascribe a universal plan and purpose to all of reality.

"God is everywhere."

Meaning: Everything is God, and everything is influencible by God.

In other words, God is the global explanation of what reality is and means, the top of the mental hierarchy of "what is". Of course, any equation of God with reality is rife with problems, because those words hide a lot of meaning. I guess for the true believers:

God is their reality.

 

[Riddick]

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?

1. There would be no afterlife.
2. God gets personally involved in some situations. Example: curing a disease, etc.

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

You've essentially reconciled yourself to believe that God is undetectable.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Hammegk

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

I guess you have never seen/read/listened to any work of fiction or any song with lyrics. Because if you only accept "truth", then why would you ever bother with stories, songs, movies, shows, books, etc., that were fictional?

Kimpatsu

An omnipotent creator would have to be the creator of the multiverse, not merely one or more universes within it.

Not any more than one flower can be more perfect than another.


How about this mind-blowing hypothetical, you believers:

If God is omnipotent, he can make a universe or reality where he doesn't exist. If he can't do that, he is not omnipotent, and his power starts to unravel. If he can, I can successfully and logically argue that God doesn't exist REGARDLESS of whether or not he actually does. Furthermore, if he can I submit to you that THIS is such a universe.

 

[billydkid]

Yes

I get the feeling everyone's dancing around the issue billydkid wants to address. Maybe not though, so billy, fell free to correct me.

I read the original question as: "In what way does God exist to us if his/her/its existence, as Beleth stated, is outside our sphere of knowledge"?
Believing in a God then merely becomes disbelief of a universe that exists just because it happens to.

I know I prefer the null hypothesis.

Yes, it is the same question. What does it mean to say God exists (even if he does exist) if we are oblivious to his existance? If his existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence? My position is that, for all practical purposes, he does not exist. I realize that many will argue that the universe itself is evidence of God's existence. Of course, you always run into the issue of developing a tenable definition of God. If one defines God as, merely, the creator of the universe you are saying, in essense, that whatever brought the universe into existence is God. This tells us nothing about the character of the "creator". I think I can confidently say that the God I grew up with and was taught about in Religious Education (way back then they still taught Christianity in public schools - not the study of Christianity, but Christianity.) - that this God does not exist, particularly when you consider that this God is characterized by his behaviours, eg. answering prayers, parting seas, resurrecting dead people, smitting enemies and such. My Best, BDK

 

[Kimpatsu]

Kimpatsu
Not any more than one flower can be more perfect than another.

Very poetic, but a tad obscure. Could you clarify?

 

[Riddick]

Hammegk
I guess you have never seen/read/listened to any work of fiction or any song with lyrics. Because if you only accept "truth", then why would you ever bother with stories, songs, movies, shows, books, etc., that were fictional?

Kimpatsu
Not any more than one flower can be more perfect than another.


How about this mind-blowing hypothetical, you believers:

If God is omnipotent, he can make a universe or reality where he doesn't exist. If he can't do that, he is not omnipotent, and his power starts to unravel. If he can, I can successfully and logically argue that God doesn't exist REGARDLESS of whether or not he actually does. Furthermore, if he can I submit to you that THIS is such a universe.

Let's just make the model smaller, which is applicable to the larger.

Just using the planet earth: He, at some point, formed the earth, separated night and day, etc., etc. Now, God did come down and visit his people (Before Jesus was born). Moses saw him from the back. The burning bush. Walking in the garden of eden. God fighting with that guy and threw his hip out. Examples of visiting the planet, to and fro, not necessarily existing on earth every day.

Actually, his presence is with us now, as the holy spirit. After Jesus left, the holy spirit was sent to earth.

So, he made earth where he didn't exist, apparently for intervals before Jesus birth. But, if he visits the planet once, then you probably have to say that he exists on it.

I don't know exactly what the definition of universe is. My definition of universe is every freaking thing out there. Self limiting to an occurence of 1.

The original problem specified is really just a restatement of the less eloquent "can god make a rock so big, he can't lift it?"

 

[John Beattie]

I'm going to have to agree that this is a model that's not entirely useful for an argument. Remember, most believers are going to accept as given that you can't have a universe without a creator. Like the pot in Beleth's example, they assume the universe is inherently a made thing, something that needs a maker. Before you can use this argument, you have to get them to accept that it's possible to have a world where God doesn't exist. The more fundamentalist they are, the less likely this argument is to be meaningful to them.

I tend towards agnosticism, personally, but the argument wouldn't convince me if I did have a strong belief in God.

 

[Kimpatsu]

I'm going to have to agree that this is a model that's not entirely useful for an argument. Remember, most believers are going to accept as given that you can't have a universe without a creator. Like the pot in Beleth's example, they assume the universe is inherently a made thing, something that needs a maker. Before you can use this argument, you have to get them to accept that it's possible to have a world where God doesn't exist. The more fundamentalist they are, the less likely this argument is to be meaningful to them.

I tend towards agnosticism, personally, but the argument wouldn't convince me if I did have a strong belief in God.

That's an interesting point you make, John, because the theistic rationale is adequately refuted by the quotation from Richard Dawkins in my signature block. I can explain the scientific nuts and bolts in greater detail (although Dawkins has dealt perfectly with the biological creation arguments in The Blind Watchmaker, I can further flesh out the physical arguments, if you're interested). Dawkins is dead right, though: the real problem is our education system.

 

[John Beattie]

Agreed. But first you have to convince them of that fact. The ultimate problem with the argument, I think, is that it assumes the very end that Billy's trying to reach; ie that God isn't necessary for the universe to exist as it does. It's the cart before the horse.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Agreed. But first you have to convince them of that fact. The ultimate problem with the argument, I think, is that it assumes the very end that Billy's trying to reach; ie that God isn't necessary for the universe to exist as it does. It's the cart before the horse.

More teaching of science, and the teaching of critical thinking, from an early age would help.