Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's not proeminent, but Aristotle's view of God essentially had him spent and left to contemplate everything.

So he thought we worship Lorgar?

 azazel the cat wrote:
I don't need to demonstrate that god is fictional

Why not? I thought we agreed that we weren't talking about the set of empirical facts when we talk about God so the teapot is out. And I already established that this set beyond empirical facts is not the same as the set of fiction. It seems to me that you're arguing for a rather impoverished notion of reality; or more likely you're just content to assume your conclusion.

Maybe I missed this in the last couple pages, but why can not the null hypothesis for the existence of any deity be that they don't?

First, we're not talking about any deity. We're talking about the Christian one, who is said to have created the universe. Materialist attempts to understand the universe are ipso facto inadequate to investigating such a being. If God exists, he cannot be found in a lab.

 Manchu wrote:
First, we're not talking about any deity. We're talking about the Christian one, who is said to have created the universe. Materialist attempts to understand the universe are ipso facto inadequate to investigating such a being. If God exists, he cannot be found in a lab.

This sounds like my freshman philosophy class >_< While I'm enjoying the debate, it's fething going over my head in a few cases

 Manchu wrote:
First, we're not talking about any deity. We're talking about the Christian one, who is said to have created the universe. Materialist attempts to understand the universe are ipso facto inadequate to investigating such a being. If God exists, he cannot be found in a lab.

Well, without any snark intended on my part, I suppose we can both certainly agree to that.

As a Christian, I can say that no snark is necessary to agree that God's existence is not (and indeed cannot be) in the same set of phenomenon as, for example, atomic weight of elements or specific gravity.

 Manchu wrote:
As a Christian, I can say that no snark is necessary to agree that God's existence is not (and indeed cannot be) in the same set of phenomenon as, for example, atomic weight of elements or specific gravity.

God retreats from knowledge. It was easy to disprove the gods, faries and spirits who lived in the streams and on the mountains simply by going to were they were supposed to be. New gods were created who 'lived in the heavens' and when we found we could study the heavens and see no gods they died or changed as well.

Now we have a god who, handily, cannot be detected in any way shape or form in our universe and so cannot be 'disproven' and people seem to be happy with that... obviously ignoring any attempt to apply rational scientific analysis to their claims or to offer any kind of proof beyond some vague metaphysical hand waving.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Now we have a god who, handily ...

Now? Not quite. Our modern practice of science was not devised to investigate God and it takes a certain lack of historical awareness to be surprised that it's not up to the task.

 Manchu wrote:
First, we're not talking about any deity. We're talking about the Christian one, who is said to have created the universe. Materialist attempts to understand the universe are ipso facto inadequate to investigating such a being. If God exists, he cannot be found in a lab.

So what you're saying is that god never interacts with the universe? For example, granting prayers?

 Manchu wrote:
Now? Not quite. Our modern practice of science was not devised to investigate God and it takes a certain lack of historical awareness to be surprised that it's not up to the task.

Only if you define "not up to the task" as "finding that it's incredibly unlikely that any kind of god exists".

 Peregrine wrote:
So what you're saying is that god never interacts with the universe?

No.

 Peregrine wrote:
any kind of god exists

The line of reasoning you're employing cannot deal with "any kind of god." Indeed, it can only deal with one kind of god -- one that is only and entirely made of matter.

That's a loaded question. Nevermind.

 Manchu wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Now we have a god who, handily ...

Now? Not quite. Our modern practice of science was not devised to investigate God and it takes a certain lack of historical awareness to be surprised that it's not up to the task.

Indeed. Science is there to investigate reality.

And the nature of god has changed significantly over the centuries as science has pushed the boundaries of knowledge ever further. To keep to the earlier anology - god continues to move to 'just behind the next mountain' every time we scale a peak to the extent we now have people claiming essentially that god doesnt exist in order that they can maintain that god exists beyond science's ability to detect it.

And as has been mentioned it is very hard to disprove a negative... especially when the specifics of said negative keep on changing when you show there is nothing there...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So what you're saying is that god never interacts with the universe?

No.

 Peregrine wrote:
any kind of god exists

The line of reasoning you're employing cannot deal with "any kind of god." Indeed, it can only deal with one kind of god -- one that is only and entirely made of matter.

Something does not need to be made of matter to either be observable or have its effects be observable. We are (supposedly) sentient beings - there is no 'sentience' molecule but we can still observe sentience.

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I don't need to demonstrate that god is fictional

Why not?

Because otherwise I get to claim that I am god, and you have to accept it if you cannot disprove it.

Manchu wrote:And I already established that this set beyond empirical facts is not the same as the set of fiction.

And I already informed you that "not consisting of facts" is the definition of fiction, in layman's terms. Either you play by reality's rules, or else you admit that god is not part of reality (and therefore not real)

Manchu wrote:or more likely you're just content to assume your conclusion.

This is basically a perfect example of irony.

daedalus wrote:Maybe I missed this in the last couple pages, but why can not the null hypothesis for the existence of any deity be that they don't?

It can be, and it is. Manchu just can't accept that (and understandably so), because it obliterates the pillar on which his religion is built.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Science is there to investigate reality.

Material reality. It cannot do more than that and any claim otherwise borders on religious.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
god continues to move to 'just behind the next mountain'

Again, not really. Early Christians claimed God created the universe long before much later Christians invented the scientific method.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
We are (supposedly) sentient beings - there is no 'sentience' molecule but we can still observe sentience.

An actual materialist will tell you that sentience is either a product of brain chemistry or nothing at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Because otherwise I get to claim that I am god, and you have to accept it if you cannot disprove it.

That's not how faith works, I'm afraid. Now, if we're talking about facts then I don't get to dispute anything. But as we've established, the existence of God is not a fact as per our agreed upon definition in that it is disputable.

 azazel the cat wrote:
And I already informed you that "not consisting of facts" is the definition of fiction

This is patently false. A history book is a collection of arguments about what happened in the past. That the arguments are disputable does not make them fictional.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Manchu just can't accept that (and understandably so), because it obliterates the pillar on which his religion is built.

Sorry but you're just not following along closely enough.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So what you're saying is that god never interacts with the universe?

No.

Then science can deal with god. If god grants prayers/performs miracles/whatever you want to call it then god is interacting with the world, and that should leave evidence behind that science can deal with. The only reason to wall off god from science is because you're afraid that science will destroy god.

The line of reasoning you're employing cannot deal with "any kind of god." Indeed, it can only deal with one kind of god -- one that is only and entirely made of matter.

Not at all. It doesn't matter what god itself is made of, as long as god interacts with the world in some way we can study those interactions. The only god science can't handle is one which never interacts with the world in any way, and at that point what's the difference between that isolationist god and no god at all?

The interaction issue is only problematic if you assume creation is merely material. Even without reference to God, I don't think that claim is true.

 Manchu wrote:
The interaction issue is only problematic if you assume creation is merely material.

No, it just assumes that god has some interaction with the material world, which is what every believer claims when they talk about prayer having a purpose besides making yourself feel good. You can argue all you want about the nature of god, but if you pray for, say, someone to recover from cancer, then you are talking about interaction with the material world that can be addressed by science. The fact that science has completely failed to find that interaction doesn't mean it's outside the scope of science, it just means that it's not very likely that it exists at all.

And sure, you're always free to fall back on the deist god who never interacts with the world, but I don't think many people actually believe in that god outside of forum arguments.

Even without reference to God, I don't think that claim is true.

So what else is there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Again, not really. Early Christians claimed God created the universe long before much later Christians invented the scientific method.

But that wasn't the point of the "always behind the next mountain" argument. Consider the explanations for the origin of life: "god did it" was always there, but the details of gods involvement have changed over time. As science has improved our understanding of the world "god did it" has been (credibly) invoked to explain less and less of the process, until now we have an explanation of evolution where the entire supposed "contribution" of god is indistinguishable from no involvement at all. And every time a theory about the "need" for god's involvement has been shown to be false (and explained by science) god's role has been redefined to be "just behind the next mountain" instead of admitting that god isn't necessary.

I agree with your argument insofar as I dont believe in magic. I dont think the materialist account covers the full range of the human experience of meaning. I think insisting that it does is another variety of fundamentalism.

 Manchu wrote:
I agree with your argument insofar as I dont believe in magic.

So what exactly does your god do then? Just sit up in heaven watching the world's biggest reality tv show and torturing the occasional sinner?

I dont think the materialist account covers the full range of the human experience of meaning. I think insisting that it does is another variety of fundamentalism.

What exactly doesn't it cover?

It fails to account for varieties of human experience. For example, what is the difference between pleasure and joy. According to a materialist, it's all just dopamine.

 Orlanth wrote:
I will choose to see the whole post as a peace offering.

It isn't a peace offering.

That isn't to say we're still at war... because we're on a message board on the internet. We're not anything. You post as you please, I post as I please, and that's our relationship. If you say something that's worth commenting on, either because I believe it to be a good point, or one with what I believe to be an error, then I'll comment. I'd expect the same of you.

 Manchu wrote:
It fails to account for varieties of human experience. For example, what is the difference between pleasure and joy. According to a materialist, it's all just dopamine.

What's your point? The fact that you aren't happy with the materialistic explanation of what causes pleasure and joy doesn't mean the explanation is insufficient. Nor does the materialistic explanation to existence questions like "is there a god" or "what brain mechanisms cause us to feel joy" prevent you from doing art/philosophy/etc to provide whatever meaning in life you want. And if you're going to abandon all existence questions and fall back on god providing meaning in life then you're conceding that religion is no more "true" than a good song or a beautiful work of art.

 Manchu wrote:
It fails to account for varieties of human experience. For example, what is the difference between pleasure and joy. According to a materialist, it's all just dopamine.

I'm going to answer your question - it is the same as the difference between 'fast' and 'slow' - both are just things moving. The label we give them are just that, a label placed on the spectrum of movement.

I'm not a brain chemistry specialist so there may be other interactions which occur in the two different 'states' you describe which makes them more distinct than points on a spectrum.

 Manchu wrote:
It fails to account for varieties of human experience. For example, what is the difference between pleasure and joy. According to a materialist, it's all just dopamine.

It doesn't really matter what it's caused by, as long as we can study it. Consciousness, for example, is something that we can study. Maybe we have a soul and it has some kind of state that influences how we feel or think as well. That's within the realm of science too, though, as long as it has an effect on our lived experience.

If God intervened in the world, ever, then that would be observable and could be studied. Science could then come up with a theory of God.

To have an interventionist God who isn't detectable by science, the intervention would have to have no effect on anything we can actually perceive in any way.

The easiest way to defend a god is to say they don't ever interact with the world (whether that's to preserve our free will or for any other reason) but most Christians don't seem to go in for that, presumably because the Bible features a ton of God interacting with the world.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

To have an interventionist God who isn't detectable by science, the intervention would have to have no effect on anything we can actually perceive in any way.

Which could easily be explained by the scenario that we're not advanced enough to perceive the intervention. Our current science cannot explain everythingbut that does not mean that whatever it is we can't explain doesn't exist, only that we are (currently) incapable of understanding it. God works in mysterious ways and all that.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

To have an interventionist God who isn't detectable by science, the intervention would have to have no effect on anything we can actually perceive in any way.

Which could easily be explained by the scenario that we're not advanced enough to perceive the intervention. Our current science cannot explain everythingbut that does not mean that whatever it is we can't explain doesn't exist, only that we are (currently) incapable of understanding it. God works in mysterious ways and all that.

Well, by "can" I mean it's possible for us to do it, somehow. If God intervened in the material world then it would be possible to detect it, and that would eventually lead to theories explaining that intervention.

For God to be interventionist and not detectable, God would have to be changing something that can't be perceived and, furthermore, doesn't affect anything that can be perceived, as that would let us infer the intervention. Basically, we can hypothesise that there's something completely separate from the material world and that God goes around flipping bits on that in response to prayer, but that intervention can't affect the material world (which for our purposes here includes anything we can perceive, like our consciousness) at all. Otherwise we can, at the very least, find phenomena that have no other explanation than divine intervention. So we might, for instance, be able to establish a link between prayer and certain things happening.

It's only an issue if you want a God who intervenes in the world. If you think God just sits in another plane and eats our souls when we die or whatever then it doesn't matter since that's not falsifiable.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

To have an interventionist God who isn't detectable by science, the intervention would have to have no effect on anything we can actually perceive in any way.

Which could easily be explained by the scenario that we're not advanced enough to perceive the intervention. Our current science cannot explain everythingbut that does not mean that whatever it is we can't explain doesn't exist, only that we are (currently) incapable of understanding it. God works in mysterious ways and all that.

Well, by "can" I mean it's possible for us to do it, somehow. If God intervened in the material world then it would be possible to detect it, and that would eventually lead to theories explaining that intervention.

For God to be interventionist and not detectable, God would have to be changing something that can't be perceived and, furthermore, doesn't affect anything that can be perceived, as that would let us infer the intervention. Basically, we can hypothesise that there's something completely separate from the material world and that God goes around flipping bits on that in response to prayer, but that intervention can't affect the material world (which for our purposes here includes anything we can perceive, like our consciousness) at all. Otherwise we can, at the very least, find phenomena that have no other explanation than divine intervention. So we might, for instance, be able to establish a link between prayer and certain things happening.

It's only an issue if you want a God who intervenes in the world. If you think God just sits in another plane and eats our souls when we die or whatever then it doesn't matter since that's not falsifiable.

I don't see where we disagree. My point was that we're not on a level where we can observe or understand everything that goes on, so we're not capable of scientifically determining whether God exists or not (nor are we likely to ever be).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I don't see where we disagree. My point was that we're not on a level where we can observe or understand everything that goes on, so we're not capable of scientifically determining whether God exists or not (nor are we likely to ever be).

Well, what I was mainly trying to point out originally (in the post quoting Manchu) is that emotional state is something we can observe ourselves, as we experience it. We don't need to be able to study it with brain probes or anything for us to Science it.

It's worth keeping in mind that science doesn't ever make a claim to fully understand anything. It just makes theories that try to explain observed phenomena. Those theories can be overturned at any time if something comes along that fits the evidence better, or there's something the theory can't fully explain.

If a materialist account cannot distinguish between things like pleasure and joy then it definitely cannot explain what causes them. When materialists say they are explaining something, they often are simply explaining it away. Moreover, pleasure and joy, in the sense that they are distinct human experiences, are no more available to science (in the proper use of that term) than God; the "intervention issue" again is only problematic inasmuch as it assumes that God must be materially available in order to exist (e.g., the woeful misunderstanding of prayer as magical wish-granting ITT). The subjectivity of human experience does not discount its reality, however.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
It's worth keeping in mind that science doesn't ever make a claim to fully understand anything.

Nor can it make any claim to account for everything that is real.