Is there a God??/???

[The_Broken_Column]

Well both seem to be horribly wrong in one case as both seem to think that Science will answer “everything”.

And XT seems to think that a blind society will somehow create a scientific civilization with which to “see beyond their natural abilities” as we have. (Eg. x-rays and infrared and so forth).

My analogy is actually, dead on, you XT are taking your skepticism into a realm that would make any scientist or philosopher choke. (Being both it makes me double choke).

First off, an analogy does not paint an “Accurate world” it paints a setting from which to derive a thought.

That setting is that, we can’t see God, they can’t see Clouds…but does that mean neither of those are non-existant?

If blind people could invent technology to see if there are clouds, then theoretically we can invent technology to see if there is a God.

But against your atheistic view points, doing so, we’d prove there is a God, because there are clouds.

That is why that aspect of the “analogy” is disregarded, because the question isn’t will we ever prove God, but the argument of there being a God.

“To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
-your man Carl Sagan

Good quote Gunner.

Anyways, I’m amazed someone can be so skeptical as to attack an analogy.

Especially when it shows just how pointless arguing about this subject can be.

It’s so pointless infact, that people are arguing about the analogy about the argument.

:rolleyes:

The fact is, Science, is incredibly fallible.

I off hand can only think of about 8 or so facts, known truths, from which all theories are derived.

Other than those truths (which are even sometimes challenged), everything is just a big mystery that we think we have an understanding of, then realize it we could be seeing something but interpret it several ways.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I just want to concur on DHW. One of the greatest books on critical thinking ever written. I agree it should be required reading in every high school.

I also agree that nothing we’ve said can disprove God, but that’s on;y because it’s a logicl impossibility. “God” has no definition or properties which could ever be tested or make any predictions.

Like I said, we can’t disprove leprechauns or the IPU either but we don’t have to. The logical default is that X does not exist unless there is some reason to believe that it does.

[The_Broken_Column]

DTC, you state at the end of your post, “To put it in context of your allegory, there is nothing that we can’t see. We know where the rain is coming from, or at least we have a damn good idea.”

Well you’re just plain wrong.

We can’t see as much as we can imagine, and just because it is imagined doesn’t mean it is automatically unreal.

“The question about “infinity” is meaningless when applied to the universe. Time is a property of the universe itself. There was no “before” to the universe. For all practical purposes, yes, the universe is infinite.”

You also said this above quote.

Well you’re wrong here too.

Time is not a “property” of the Universe itself, in fact, it’s not even really a property at all.

Time is a motion, the motion of the Universe through the 4th Dimension.

Inflation does not occur in three-space…and it is that motion in four-space that we are able to construct “time”.

Without motion there’d be no time.

Well anyways, that is a whole other discussion into a far more in-depth field of science.

But at the least, this disproves your idea that it is a moot point.

Because existance itself is not dependent on time…what was before the big-bang?

What caused the big-bang? so forth.

[gunner]

dtc: " The logical default is that X does not exist unless there is some reason to believe that it does."
This is what i think BC is trying to relate his analogy to. That there is reason to believe ‘It’ does exist. Of course, it can be seen from either prospective of the infamous two differing ways…

[The_Broken_Column]

Your flaw DTC lay in your refusal to believe that the Universe itself is possibly, that property which could be tested for God.

You seem to just disregard that here is this Universe, a completely remarkable thing.

To us it only seems so natural, as we are a part of it of course.

But you don’t step outside of it, and ask the BIG question.

Science can only go so far as you can only experiment within the system itself.

I find many Atheists can benefit from another quote I often use.

“A little philosophy inclineth men’s minds to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds to religion.” --Bacon

[The_Broken_Column]

Exactly Gunner, my point, and in my last post I concluded it, I only need to link it all in this post.

I said, “Science can only go as far as the system itself.” The system it is limited to.

In the world of the blind, they would have a near impossible time proving if there were clouds above or buckets or nothing.

They would have an impossible time at proving if there was a “Spectrum to light”.

So in their system, all they can do about the theory of clouds…is debate, and it is never ending.

Because of the limitations of our system, we can only debate about God, we will never know. This is because none of us can grow eyes to see beyond the system of our Universe (known existance).

Technology, required to follow the laws of this Universe, can thus not step outside of this system either.

[Lobsang]

Argh, It gives me a headache trying to understand all this thread.
To me it is plain to see that the concept ‘God’ was created by humans as a device to explain the unexplainable. And by that I mean the not-yet-explained.

We don’t have a purpose. The VAST majority of us are extremely insignificant blips in the history of the utterly-purposeless human race. If it/we have a ‘purpose’ it is simply to spread and multiply. Nothing more.
The existence of God makes sense in that humans are irrational. What I mean is that it makes sense to me that we created this ridiculous notion, because afterall we are a silly lot. We believed the earth was flat because we couldn’t yet see the evidence that it is round. We believed it was at the centre of the solar system bevause we couldn’t yet see the evidence that it is not.

It is only a matter of time until this aquirement of knowledge explains the existence of matter i.e. us.

[XT]

You just don’t get it, The_Broken_Column. Your analogy makes no sense either way, but I’m beating my head against the wall here for no purpose. One last try here and I’m going to call it quits on this.

You are assuming your theoretical people can’t do this or that because they can’t ‘see’…all the while forgetting that there are other ways to observe the physical world than sight (smell, touch, taste, etc). Its your own imagination thats coming up short in your desire to make this tortured analogy work. The bottom line is, your ‘clouds’ are physical manifestations that CAN BE OBSERVED in various ways, even by the blind…‘god’ is not observable or measurable or quantifyable in any way.

@The_Broken_Column

That setting is that, we can’t see God, they can’t see Clouds…but does that mean neither of those are non-existant?

And here is where your imagination and analogy breaks down. Your theoretical blind society might not be able to SEE the clouds, but they can certainly measure them…or measure their effect on the environment (off the top of my head, a blind person could simply observe presure variants and empirically measure its effect on the weather…i.e. barometic pressure low, whats it doing outside?? And thats just off the top of my head, given 2 min of thought about it. An entire society that NEVER had sight, but who did have a scientific method could come up with myriad ways to ‘observe’ their world)…IF they have science and a scientific method. God, however, can NOT be either ‘seen’ NOR ‘measured’, no matter what you have.

Look, I know you really want this analogy to work. You are probably quite taken with it and all. And if you want to continue to go with it, thats fine by me. But there are gaping holes in the thing, and its not just me being some kind of super skeptic or somthing here, whatever you might think. It simply doesn’t work as some kind of wierd proof that god exists because your theoretical blind folks can’t ‘see’ the clouds…and it doesn’t work because your own imagination is stuck on the ‘see’ part, instead of the ‘observe’ part.

Anyway, on to other things. I missed this:

@Carl Sagon

“To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”

While this is true its kind of a shallow thing to for him to say IMO. And ya, I like Carl Sagon, but that doesn’t mean everything he ever uttered is gospel or something.

For ME to make an apple pie from scratch, I’d certainly have to figure out a way to create an apple out of whole clothe…something I’m patently not able to do. However, the reality is, apples evolved through millions of years (and don’t require a ‘god’ explaination either)…with a healthy amount of human intervention recently to make them what they are today. I’m not sure what points you figure this scores or what what it means…maybe you could tell me what you think Carl was getting at here.

As to your ending about science…thats what makes it such a useful thing. It IS fallable, unlike religion (well, what religion CLAIMS to be anyway). However, science is also self correcting in the long term…oh ya, and it WORKS too. Always a plus when dealing in the real world.

-XT

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@The_Broken_Column

Well both seem to be horribly wrong in one case as both seem to think that Science will answer “everything”.

God of the gaps

And XT seems to think that a blind society will somehow create a scientific civilization with which to “see beyond their natural abilities” as we have. (Eg. x-rays and infrared and so forth)

My analogy is actually, dead on, you XT are taking your skepticism into a realm that would make any scientist or philosopher choke. (Being both it makes me double choke).

You’re a scientist, are you? Ever heard the phrase *“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” *. Do you know what “unnecessary plurality” is?

First off, an analogy does not paint an “Accurate world”

Yours sure doesn’t.

That setting is that, we can’t see God, they can’t see Clouds…but does that mean neither of those are non-existant?

The clouds produce something tangible. There is a reason to hypothesize “clouds.” God poduces nothing. There is no reason to hypothesize 'God." Your analogy doesn’t work. There is no real world analogue to the “rain” in your scenario.

If blind people could invent technology to see if there are clouds, then theoretically we can invent technology to see if there is a God.

By all means, do so. Get cracking man, I’d like to see it.

But against your atheistic view points, doing so, we’d prove there is a God, because there are clouds.

Huh?

That is why that aspect of the “analogy” is disregarded, because the question isn’t will we ever prove God, but the argument of there being a God.

There is no reason in the universe to hypothesize a “God.” I’ve never even heard a decent definition for what “God” is or herad any theoretical mechanism for how this entity interacts with the universe.

There’s that pesky razor again.

Anyways, I’m amazed someone can be so skeptical as to attack an analogy.

Well if the anlaogy is flawed it doesn’t prove anything. We must be rigorous, mustn’t we?

Especially when it shows just how pointless arguing about this subject can be.

So who’s forcing you?

It’s so pointless infact, that people are arguing about the analogy about the argument.

It was a flawed analogy. Don’t expect flawed analogies to be persuasive.

The fact is, Science, is incredibly fallible.

God of the Gaps again.

Humans are fallible but scientific method is still miles ahead of wild ass guesses which is all that theism amounts to.

I off hand can only think of about 8 or so facts, known truths, from which all theories are derived.

Other than those truths (which are even sometimes challenged), everything is just a big mystery that we think we have an understanding of, then realize it we could be seeing something but interpret it several ways.

[/quote]

Argument from ignorance. The fact that you don’t know every fact does not mean that your pet hypothesis must be true.

[XT]

Let me ask you guys both something…it goes with your ‘blind’ analogy. How do you know atoms exist? After all, you can’t see them directly. How do you know electrons exist? Black holes? There are myriad things that we ‘know’ exist, even though we can’t directly ‘see’ them. We’ve observed planets circling distant stars…observed them even though we can’t SEE them…by there effect on the universe. Same with the other examples I gave. So, even though your theoretical ‘blind’ people can’t ‘see’, they can still observe (assuming they have a brain of course). The light spectrum? They can’t ‘see’ it any more than we can ‘see’ electrons…but they can still observe them if they have science and scientific method. And the same goes for your clouds.

You are thinking of these people as being handicapped or something. These are people that were born to an entire SOCIETY that was blind…were ALWAYS blind. All they ever KNEW is that state…its completely natural to them. Different rules and methods would govern such a society, not stripped down rules and methods from our own. Its your imagination that can’t stretch to encompass your own analogy IMO…thats why you can’t see the holes in it.

Ok, I’m done. I’ve given ya’ll the best I can here and if you still can’t see what I’m getting at, its pointless from here on out.

Reguards,
XT

[Lobsang]

To sum up (I am sure my thread is about 12 posts up by now)- we are prone to believe some bloody stupid things until the plain fact of their Falsity stares us in the face.

We have proven our gullability [in believing ridiculous notions] as a race. As an atheist I am recongnising this and deciding to dump all the remaining evidence-less beliefs.

If I am being honest I don’t really believe in the big-bang, There is no conclusive evidence for it and I cannot comprehend it. I can comprehend that the earth is round, I cannot comprehend the big bang and I cannot comprehend the existence of God. I therefore resolve to not pick something to believe in. But rather wait until someone has found out for me
In other words. I will not believe there is a blue sky and a few trees (atheist) or inexplicably powerful vengeful being (theist) out side my window. I will simply wait until someone opens the curtains. and say ah, there are trees and a blue sky. and some other interesting things too. or ah, there is a big smiting vengeful dude.

[The_Broken_Column]

God of the Gaps is a point Atheists use to avoid the fact that there ARE gaps. After all, if there are gaps, then the Atheist’s argument is invalid, as their only argument against God is that we can know everything.

XT, no you can not create any device to measure the effects of clouds without site.

It is so simple for you to sit there and claim you can make something that will give you responses audiably or such but it doesn’t work that way.

You are the one making wild accusations, claiming a society of blind people could create science, hell considering humanity’s small olfactory lobe and limited audiable range, I doubt we could even procreate very well let alone build a society capable of testing for clouds.

Why is it Atheists build everything on the assumption that humans are “infinite”.

There is a limit to human capacity, and what is beyond that, will never be discovered without technology.

There is also a limit to techonolgy, and anything beyond that is only theoretical.

And DTC yet again, you say, “Clouds produce something tangible, God does not.”

The tangible production of God is the Universe.

You can not sit there and deny that the possibility is that the Universe was created by what we would all call a “God”, on the pretense that science theoretically can theorize how the Universe began without such a creator.

That is stupid in itself. Why are you even trying to sound smart when you argue such a position?

[The_Broken_Column]

@xtisme

Let me ask you guys both something…it goes with your ‘blind’ analogy. How do you know atoms exist? After all, you can’t see them directly.

Actually they have taken a “picture” if you could call it that, of a molecule of a metal, which allowed a projection of atoms as “peaks”. Aside from that though, Atoms are mathematical constructs.

@xtisme

How do you know electrons exist? Black holes? There are myriad things that we ‘know’ exist, even though we can’t directly ‘see’ them. We’ve observed planets circling distant stars…observed them even though we can’t SEE them…by there effect on the universe. Same with the other examples I gave. So, even though your theoretical ‘blind’ people can’t ‘see’, they can still observe (assuming they have a brain of course). The light spectrum? They can’t ‘see’ it any more than we can ‘see’ electrons…but they can still observe them if they have science and scientific method. And the same goes for your clouds.

Wrong…the analogy is the theory of that which is beyond the observable capabilities of a person.

In a blind society, there would be no method to prove there is such a thing as Clouds, as blind people wouldn’t be able to construct the device, they wouldn’t be able to construct electronics, or a barometer. Barometers work on the principle of mercury and without the ability to see no one could devise a way of using mercury to test pressures.

Now we no longer need the mercury but that’s besides the point, modern barometers are even more sophisticated.

@xtisme

You are thinking of these people as being handicapped or something. These are people that were born to an entire SOCIETY that was blind…were ALWAYS blind. All they ever KNEW is that state…its completely natural to them. Different rules and methods would govern such a society, not stripped down rules and methods from our own. Its your imagination that can’t stretch to encompass your own analogy IMO…thats why you can’t see the holes in it.

Exactly, always blind incapable of progressing as we have. It is as the old saying goes.

“How do you describe the color red to a Blind Man?”

Your imagination is false, you assume that blind people could make machines to “see for them” as we have in regards to x-rays and so forth.

We can “see black holes” by observing the gravitational effects.

This is not without our abilities to observe.

Same with X-rays, and ifrared, and so forth.

All are within our powers of observation.

Such things are without the powers of observation of a society of blind people.

Just as God is without the powers of observation to us.

Ok, I’m done. I’ve given ya’ll the best I can here and if you still can’t see what I’m getting at, its pointless from here on out.

@xtisme

Reguards,
XT

Oh yeah…someone claimed that there was no purpose to life, why haven’t you killed yourself to prove it?

I mean after all, if there is no purpose to life, might as well not be alive right?

[Lobsang]

The_Broken_Column, Disprove my theory (belief actually) that God (the concept) is an invention of historical human society for the purpose of a) explaining what they do not understand and b) attempting to bring some order to the daily lives of it’s citizens through the use of something/one to fear.

I believe Man created ‘God’ not the other way round. This makes perfect sense to me.

[Lobsang]

I apologise for my persistence.

It is because this thread is moving too fast (and getting bogged down in details) and I want to be seen. AND because someone trying to convince me of the existence of God is akin to someone trying to convince me there is a Lion in the attic. It baffles/frustrates/ and ignites me into discussion.

[The_Broken_Column]

Why would I want to try and disprove that? I believe with point a, point b is more far fetched.

Most religions were only formed out of part a.

Part b, only seems to mirror early henotheistic Judaism, but even then it wasn’t created that way, it just took that shape.

This however, does not disprove there being a God. Just because we invent the concept due to our inability to explain things, doesn’t mean there isn’t a God at all, all it means is that our initial concepts of God (such as him making us in his image thus looking human), are not necessarily correct due to their being baseless.

But that as Science develops more we’ll have a better understanding of God, and find “Truth”, and come further out of ignorance.

[Lobsang]

The_Broken_Column In as clear a way as you can, define what God is.
Is it a person? A mathematical equation? A concept? A substance? A place? what is it?

[Deucalion]

I don’t think there’s much point to this, but here goes anyway:

@The_Broken_Column

Ok, I’m done. I’ve given ya’ll the best I can here and if you still can’t see what I’m getting at, its pointless from here on out.

It’s pointless not because people can’t see what you are trying to get at, we can, it’s just that you don’t understand that you’re pointing at a painting of a place that doesn’t actually exist.

You claim that the universe is definite evidence of a god, even though there exists perfectly good explanations that don’t require a god, such as the most accepted cosmological theory which states that time began at the big bang and that the universe is eternal, so the universe’s existence is not evidence of anything. You said that Diogenes’ flaw was that he refused to believe that the universe is the property which could be tested for God, but that is nonsensical because a) the property will always be true because it couldn’t be tested if there was no universe and b) you can’t discern between a universe that came about without the influnece of any god and one caused by a god, either case would test as true.

Since there is no evidence of god your analogy fails completely since there is no ‘rain’.
Furthermore, it fails because clouds are detectable, ie. observable by non-visible means, but a god may not be.

In trying to stitch your analogy back together you say that a blind society could never develop science or technology to detect them, without any sound arguments or evidence as to why that would be the case. I can easily conceive of an interface that consists of a grid with squares that move up and down depending on some value. Add radar capabilities to this and voila, images of clouds or buckets.

I suspect they would develop science quicker than we did, since blind people would have to be more investigative, more curious, just to survive. You don’t even think they could use mercury or develop technology for a barometer. When I was younger I made one out of a plastic container, a jar and some water (actual ingredients may vary, it’s been a while), so surely they could as well. Oh and do tell me more about this ‘principle of mercury’.

A few select quotes:

@The_Broken_Column

I said, “Science can only go as far as the system itself.” The system it is limited to.

If the nature of the system is such that it’s existence can be explained through its parts or by it’s parts through some other means then it does not constitute evidence of an exterior cause.

@The_Broken_Column

God of the Gaps is a point Atheists use to avoid the fact that there ARE gaps. After all, if there are gaps, then the Atheist’s argument is invalid, as their only argument against God is that we can know everything.

No, the only necessary argument against a god is that there is no sound evidence or reasoning that demonstrates the presence of one.

@The_Broken_Column

“How do you describe the color red to a Blind Man?”

‘Red’ is fairly arbitrary, it is not a ‘real’ thing but instead is subjective.

[XT]

Ok, I’m done. I’ve given ya’ll the best I can here and if you still can’t see what I’m getting at, its pointless from here on out.

Actually Deucalion thats a quote from me that The_Broken_Column didn’t quote correctly. I was the one who was pretty much done last night. There really was no point going on, especially since The_Broken_Column seemed to be going off the deep end. His inability to even be able to concieve of a blind society being able to do anything at all just showed his lack of imagination. His inability to concieve that his ‘rain’ is a physical and observable manifestation (i.e. even if you are blind if you go out in a rain storm you get wet) while there IS no such manifestation in OUR world of ‘god’ (he falls back on simply pointing to the Universe and going ‘THERE is gods manifestation to us’) thats comparable shows he really doesnt get it.

His false analogy would have ‘humans’ who were born blind, probably evolved blind, but with exactly the same senses as we have otherwise (same sense of touch, taste, smell, hearing, etc)…which is ridiculous. Even humans born blind in OUR society usually have more accute hearing, sense of touch, etc…let alone if they EVOLOVED that way. But THESE humans are also stupid and can’t do anything for themselves. I gave him an example that took me all of a min. to come up with as far as a way these folks could ‘observe’ clouds or at least their impact on thier environment (and thus give them the ability to hypothosize ‘clouds’ and not some kind of rain god or bucket theory…lol)…you gave him another. Why would it be inconcievable for this society to come up with a barometer for instance, or radio…he doesn’t say, just that its obvious…to him. Its clear we are dealing with someone who has already made up his mind, but lacks the imagination to see the gaping holes in his own analogy…and attributes our pointing this out to us being some kind of stuborn super skeptics.
At a guess he’s used to debating this analogy with folks that are a bit less…skeptical. And a bit less critical too I’d say.

-XT

[gunner]

I thought tbc’s analogy, if he did come up with it on his own, was pretty damn creative. It’s the kind of thing that if he shares it amoung his fellow believers, than it would only strengthen their ‘faith’. But using to ‘convert’ anyone is obviously doubtful to work. His analogy is probably one of millions. And going to catholic schools I’ve heard most of them. This argument is a draw every time it’s argued(unless one of the arguers sucks). Growing up catholic, I know how theology works; thought-processes, beliefs, arguements, etc. A person that is ‘sold’ in thier belief is unpersuadable. It’s absolutely pointless to try to convince this person otherwise. It wasn’t to long ago that I was a full-timer believer. And nobody could change me except myself. So I guess this applies to any slightly stubborn, individual.

**
XT**:
" While this is true its kind of a shallow thing to for him to say IMO. And ya, I like Carl Sagon, but that doesn’t mean everything he ever uttered is gospel or something. "

Why was it ‘shallow thing’ to mention the quote. It didn’t serve a purpose in the discussion. I had just read it and thought it was a cool thing for Carl Sagan to say. You mentioned that everything he says is not the gospel truth. i agree with this, but i never implied that he was infallible. I never take anyone’s word for ‘gospel’.