Is There a God?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
141

[QUOTE=Don Blazys]
Apparently, you believe that Bertrand Russell “unraveled” the CTMU a hundred years before Chris Langan developed it!
[/quote]

If one accepts propositional logic in that something that can be logically discussed need not correspond to reality, then yes: his argument was stillborn. Just as if one accepts the validity under certain circumstances of the syllogism (developed thousands of years ago and which propositional logic was an improvement on) then one can determine that if some men are Greek and an object referred to is a man, it isn’t necessary that the person referred to is Greek.

[QUOTE=Bertrand Russell]
within a logic that I reject.
[/quote]

142

Quoting gamerunknown quoting Bertrand Russell.

Logic takes on many forms.

Some forms of logic are more complete and/or more consistent than others, and therefore more useful with regards to some particular purpose.

It would be counter productive and therefore a mistake to summarily reject any form of logic that is self-consistent enough to provide solutions to some particular class of mathematical or scientific problem.

You know, it can be said that everything in the universe displays a certain amount or degree of logic. It can be argued that Mozart’s Piano Concerto #21 “sounds good” because it’s thematic structure is logically self-consistent. Heck, Ted Williams would probably assert that hitting a baseball requires an extraordinay amount of logic, and he would be right in the sense that no computer will ever posess the logic required to instantaneously calculate the trajectory of a pitch thrown with the purpose of being both vicious and confounding.

Don.

143

Is this a joke, cause I’m not getting it.

144

Hmm, in this article Cecil says discovering why the half dollar disappeared “involves a search for first causes on a par with proofs of the existence of God.”

Guess he was emboldened with discovering the second cause!

145

Do not feed the monkeys.

146

Interesting. I wonder if Cecil Adams will start trying to answer other “Great Debate” topics. But I’ve never imagined Cecil Adams was an atheist and certainly not a male Madalyn Murray O’Hair. In fact some of his columns implied his belief in theism actually.

147

Your feelings on this matter are just that, and not relevant to any argument as to existence. IOW they speak about you and not about the subject at hand.

No, they don’t.

No, it doesn’t.

No, you don’t.

Thus explicitly contradicting yourself “I believe in god, the creater of everything we see”.

Not so.

How long does mankind, as a whole, think things can live (are you saying)? And what lives longer than that? As far as I’m aware the record holders are slow-growing trees in cold places like the Tasmanian and Californian highlands, which live for ~5,000 years.

Which is relevant to the existence of god(s), how?

What if we’re not? Why would we consider we might be? How would be know either way? What if we stop asking “what if” questions without relevance or useful answerability?

This is all existential meandering that most of us got over when we were 19. The only specific statement in here is “Science only studies what they perceive as real”, which is flat-out wrong. Virtual particles, pre-big-bang states, multiverses - there are so many counter-examples that you can’t have even looked before posting this stuff.

That’s good, because it’s bollocks. There’s no particular reason why an entity can’t create something more complex (however you measure that) than itself. Let’s say humans create a computer 90% as complex as a human brain, which appears to be allowable in this scenario. They we create another, and interconnect every element in one to every element in the other. Bingo, we have created an entity more complex that we are.

148

There are at least a couple of discussions on this thread that ought to be spun off on their own thread, since they don’t have much to do with the main point of this one. Rickymouse’s ramblings should be a separate thread. Don Blazys’s comments on Chris Langan and the CTMU should be a separate thread.

149

Actually, he was operating under the assumption that it was true and pointing out that positing an infinitely complex God doesn’t resolve the problem, it just begs the question. I don’t know whether he accepts the proposition on its face though.

I’d actually agree with Rickymouse here. We all have beliefs about reality based on past experience and the law of simple enumeration means that we can never be entirely certain that physical reality will operate in the same way tomorrow as it did today. For example, we don’t hold that stepping off a curb will cause us excruciating pain because we have no reason to believe it. Even animals demonstrate superstitious, perhaps automatic forms of belief with conditioned behaviour. As far as I’m aware, there is no method of separating human belief from beliefs of other animals other than the fact that humans can communicate their beliefs. Some beliefs about reality can be more damaging to societies than others and I believe that some beliefs and observations of reality are more accurate than others (for example, holding that the Earth is an oblate spheroid is more accurate than saying that it is flat).

150

The original questioner asked for proof of God. Well how much ‘proof’ does one need? I have seen a tree, a grasshopper, a stary night, an infant. Convinced!

151

Are your standards of evidence that ridiculously low in every other aspect of your life?

152

Are you a demon from hell sent to deceive us? How much ‘proof’ does one need? I have seen a tree, a grasshopper, a starry night, an infant. Convinced!

Since I have established beyond all certainty that you are a demon from hell, I abjure thee, in Christ’s name be gone!

153

I’ve seen a child dying of cancer, Investment bankers getting bailed out with taxpayer dollars, Genocide, Nickleback. How much proof of the non-existence of god does one need.

154

Well, I’ve got a copy of the “Origin of Species” here which covers 3/4. I’ve also read “A Brief History of Time”, but if the night sky actually stared back then that’s an entirely different phenomenon…

155

The master speaks…

Think we may have offended him?

156

Oh and here is one of the possible first causes Cecil discusses. Not sure if I linked it earlier, but it’s worth a watch.

157

Cyningablod - congratulations! Your post (#38 in this thread) has been the “launch question” for Cecil’s current column (2-Dec-2011). Here’s a link, if you haven’t seen it: Is there a God (revisited)? - The Straight Dope

We hope you’re pleased that you made it to fame and immortality! … even if Slug’s cartoon and Cecil’s comments are, um, er… well, in their inimitable styles.

158

I thought my post (#67) expressed more clearly what Cecil was hinting at in his first column, which was that he didn’t think much of any proofs of the existence of God. He was saying that whatever they prove exists doesn’t have much to do with the usual notion of God. It was clear to me that Cyningablod was seeing more in Cecil’s answer than was there.

In the thread started by bldysaaba:

that inspired the first column, I said (in post #5) that Cecil isn’t going to do a column on the existence of God, since it’s a deep philosophical question that could be argued about endlessly and not a factual question that can be easily answered. That, I think, was what Cecil was saying is his usual snide manner in his first column. Some of you still seem to think that Cecil gives definitive answers to deep philosophical questions. I think that he doesn’t want to do any such thing, and he’ll always give you a snide response.

159

I’m trying to draw out Cecil’s argument.

[QUOTE=Cecil, “Is there a God (Revisited)?”]
In short, by acknowledging the possibility that God in some esoteric sense exists, which was the point of my original column, we show that God in the popular sense probably doesn’tor [sic] more exactly, we show that belief in such a God has no rational basis. Happy now?
[/QUOTE]
All the popular gods are first cause and nice. But first cause isn’t nice (refer, physics). So the popular gods don’t exist.

It doesn’t follow that belief in such a God has no rational basis. So maybe Cecil’s argument is:

If the first cause argument worked, it would show that the popular Gods don’t exist. So using such an argument to support belief in a popular God is irrational.

It might follow that belief on the basis of such an argument is irrational, for it to follow in general it would also need to be the case that no other good arguments making the rounds, or that all arguments fit this general form. It may well be the case that the latter is true, or close enough to it.

Aside: the following from the first article strikes me as odd.

[QUOTE=Cecil, “Is there a God?”]
The core argument, if you’ll allow me to brutally oversimplify, is as follows: the transitory and inconsequential phenomena we see around us, such as humanity, the solar system, and rock ‘n’ roll, are but contingent beings. (I use the term “being” loosely here. Deal with it.)
[/QUOTE]

It seems to me that the term “contingent” must be loosely used, as I don’t think the first cause of physics is a necessary anything.

160

The column is quite clear: If God exists, he doesn’t exist as any major Western religion looks at him, and the more we learn, it’s harder all the time to keep insisting of that old style God.

Originally, the universe was the Earth surrounded by celestial bodies. We were at the center of creation, and God had only a single planet to supervise. Of course, he listened to our prayers and cared greatly about the comings and goings on this planet.

Then, we discovered those celestial bodies were other planets. Certainly, they have life, so they can to sing hymns unto the Lord and be of service to him? Why else would God create them? Turns out, they’re pretty much devoid of life that can worship the All Mighty Creator. Another theory down the tubes. Then we discovered those stars were other suns, and our solar system wasn’t the only one for God to watch over. Then, we discover the galaxy, and we’re nowhere near the center of that. We’re just a tiny rock circling an insignificant star in a galaxy with billions of stars, many 10 to 100 larger than our insignificant sun. Then, we discover we’re merely one in an innumerable number of galaxies.

Then, we discovered dark matter. Even worse, this dark matter makes up 80% of all matter in the universe. Not only are we insignificant in our physical realm, but our physical realm doesn’t even make up a majority of the matter in the universe. Now, we know that dark matter itself is out voted by something even more mysterious: dark energy. Our entire physical universe itself is only a bit of spittle in what is thought of as this universe. This Universe? Yes, there might be other universes out there. Infinite number of them making all of our matter, dark matter, dark energy, and the entire universe insignificant in the entire creation.

If there is a God, can he care what we are doing in our microcosmic bit of space? After all, if we commit mass genocide or even blow up the planet, it has no effect on the universe. If we conquer an entire galaxy, it is still insignificant in the grand scheme of things. And, at that point, you might ask why even bother to believe or not believe in God?

Who cares whether God exists or doesn’t exist because in the grand scheme of things, can it really matter what we believe? Can we really say that God insists that we pray this way or that, or that we must believe this or that? Can a God over such a vast creation, the multiple universes out there, really be so concerned with our insignificant particle of matter (and matter itself is itself just some bit of flotsam making up only 5% of the entire universe), we call home?

Look at the bright side. You can now sleep late on Sundays.