... Therefore God does not exist.

[loinburger]

Re: Let's end, shall we?

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
But in what way that reasoning serves to those that when confronted with questions like
"What was there before the Big Bang?"
"What is there, after the single most simple unit of matter?"
says,
"God is"?

Why assume that there is anything there at all? It would be more reasonable to assume "Nothing" as an answer rather than "Some indefinable force whose existence is not supported by any evidence whatsoever."

A Purple Unicorn example will show what I mean. What being magically appears in my closet when I shut the door, yet disappears once again when I open the door to try to catch it? I could say "A magical purple unicorn," or I could say "Nothing." Clearly "Nothing" is the simpler explanation.

Am I to hope that Science will ever give me a complete answer on issues such as these?

Science stands a much better chance of satisfactorily answering these questions than some nebulous set of assumptions based on absolutely no evidence.

[Dauphin]

Invisible Pink unicorns DOOOO exist.

Let me proove to you that an invisible pink unicorns exist. To do this it obviously acceptable to prove the higher statement that there exists an existing invisible pink unicorn. (By an existing invisible pink unicorn, I mean one that exists.) Therefore if there exists an existing invisible pink unicorn, then there must exist an invisible pink unicorn. So all I have to do is prove that an existing invisible pink unicorn exists. Well, there are two possibilities:

a) An existing invisible pink unicorn exists.

b) An existing invisible pink unicorn does not exist.

Possibility b) is clearly contradictory: How could an existing invisible pink unicorn not exist? Just as it is true that a pink unicorn is necessarily pink, an existing invisible pink unicorn must necessarily be existing.

[loinburger]

Just as it is true that a pink unicorn is necessarily pink, an existing invisible pink unicorn must necessarily be existing.

Bloody hell! Chalk up one more mythical creature that I've pissed off by questioning its existence...

What kind of a Hell would an existing invisible pink unicorn send me to?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by loinburger


Bloody hell! Chalk up one more mythical creature that I've pissed off by questioning its existence...

What kind of a Hell would an existing invisible pink unicorn send me to?

You'd have to ask PH, its his favourite mythical deity.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by loinburger


Bloody hell! Chalk up one more mythical creature that I've pissed off by questioning its existence...

What kind of a Hell would an existing invisible pink unicorn send me to?

One with lots of unicorn manure

[Wraith]

--"Thanks for the link (yeah, go figure, I actually read it!)."

On this forum, it's less common than you might think.

--"But in what way that reasoning serves to those that when confronted with questions like"

Quite simply. If you ask "What was there before the big bang?" and answer "god", that just begs the question "Then what was there before god?"

God is not a necessary requirement to the creation of a universe. Bringing in a god, of whatever type, does not resolve any real questions, it just adds another layer of complexity to them.

As far as definitions offered, I had hoped adding Rand's definition would make it perfectly clear. I'm a fairly conceptual thinker (though not nearly as much so as Rand was), so entities to me was quite perfectly obvious.

As far as philosophy goes, you will find some knowledgeable people here. It is recommended that you do engage in some basic research before attempting to debate/argue on philosophic topics.

As for me, if I see a term I'm not familiar with, I tend to go to a search engine and type it in. Like I said, second page on the list.

Now, just for fun, let me post just about the only sensible argument in favor of there being gods that I've ever seen.

It's from a book titled "The Last Hero" by Terry Pratchett. If you aren't familiar with the Discworld series, some basic info is required to make sense of the quote.
The Discworld is, well, a disc carried on the back of four elephants that are riding on a turtle that swims through space. The inhabitants of the Discworld are based on the usual fantasy archtypes (although Pratchett has great fun with them).
In this book, a group of old barbarian heroes are attempting to return to the gods something that was stolen from them. Fire. In the form of a large amount of explosives. Unfortunately, this will also destroy the world, so some people have been sent to stop them. This includes Captain Carrot, of the Ahnk-Morpork City Watch, whose commander, Vimes, is one of the most cynical characters you'll meet (I quite like him). Blind Io is a major god on the Discworld, sort of a cross between Thor and Wotan. At this point Carrot is not happy with Blind Io.

"Tell me," said Blind Io. "Is there a god of policemen?"
"No sir," said Carrot. "Coppers would be far too suspicious of anyone calling themselves a god of policemen to believe in one."
"But you are a gods-fearing man?"
"What I've seen of them certainly frightens the life out of me, sir. And my commander always says, when we go about our business in the city, that when you look at the state of mankind you are forced to accept the reality of the gods."
The gods smiled their approval of this, which was indeed an accurate quotation. Gods have little use for irony.
-- Terry Prachett ("The Last Hero")

Wraith
"The Turtle Moves"
-- Terry Pratchett

[loinburger]

Wraith: Is The Last Hero on paperback yet? I had to wait forever for The Fifth Elephant to be released in paperback...

[Rogan Josh]

Re: Re: Let's end, shall we?

Originally posted by loinburger
A Purple Unicorn example will show what I mean. What being magically appears in my closet when I shut the door, yet disappears once again when I open the door to try to catch it? I could say "A magical purple unicorn," or I could say "Nothing." Clearly "Nothing" is the simpler explanation.

Whay are you guys so obsessed with pink unicorns? It has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God!

Science stands a much better chance of satisfactorily answering these questions than some nebulous set of assumptions based on absolutely no evidence.

This is not true. Science makes no attempt to asswer these questions - nor should it. No matter how well we undersatnd the universe, science asks the question 'how' - not 'why'. At the very best, we will eventually have one equation (or one principle from which the equation is derived) which explains all phenomena from the Big Bang to where your odd socks go when you do the laundry. Then we have the question: where does this equation (or principle) come from?

The pink unicorn makes no attempt to explain this - the existence of God does. Therefore the existence of God is a more favoured idea than the existence of the pink unicorn. And since it at least attempt to answer a question which is not answered by any other idea, it is a more favourable theory than nothing at all. (and this is not to mention all the indirect evidence of God's existence....)

I should point out that God is not a very satisfying theory in this regard either, since one can still pose the question of 'why' did God create the universe, or indeed where did he come from, but still....

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Whay are you guys so obsessed with pink unicorns? It has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God!

Believing in pink unicorns makes as much logical sense as believing in God.

This is not true. Science makes no attempt to asswer these questions - nor should it.

What is different about this statement, and a statement like "Science should not attempt to show that the Earth orbits the Sun"? Why are you trying to delimit the areas which science is allowed to examine?

At the very best, we will eventually have one equation (or one principle from which the equation is derived) which explains all phenomena from the Big Bang to where your odd socks go when you do the laundry. Then we have the question: where does this equation (or principle) come from?

From God? Then where does God come from? All you've done is add an unnecessary layer to the problem, without really answering anything at all.

(and this is not to mention all the indirect evidence of God's existence....)

Such as...

I should point out that God is not a very satisfying theory in this regard either, since one can still pose the question of 'why' did God create the universe, or indeed where did he come from, but still....

Exactly. Believing in God doesn't answer anything without producing the same questions He was intended to answer.

An statement I've occasionally heard is, "The Universe came from God." Fine, then where did God come from?

The answer is always "God is beyond our understanding, so that question is unanswerable."

Now why is this somehow more satisfying than saying "The Universe is beyond our understanding, so we cannot know why the universe came into existence"? Why is it better to believe in an incomprehensible entity, rather than an incomprehensible universe?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by loinburger
What is different about this statement, and a statement like "Science should not attempt to show that the Earth orbits the Sun"? Why are you trying to delimit the areas which science is allowed to examine?

There is quite a bit of difference. Science can show that the Earth orbits the Sun. It cannot say why the physical laws are as they are, or where they come from fundamentally. I am not trying to restrict science in this - it is just a fact.

Then where does God come from? All you've done is add an unnecessary layer to the problem, without really answering anything at all.

Was discovering that the protons are made of quarks and gluons laying just another unnecessary layer to the problem of the structure of matter, in your opinion?

Believing in God doesn't answer anything without producing the same questions He was intended to answer.

There doesn't have to be any question about where God came from . Cause and effect presupposes the existence of time. If God is outwith time (as an omnipotent being must be) he requires no cause.

Why is it better to believe in an incomprehensible entity, rather than an incomprehensible universe?

It is not a case of an ''incomprehensible universe'' at all - the universe itself can be perfectly well understood, and I have no doubt that some day we will have a theory of everything. It is only the question of why the universe exists as it is that we cannot answer definitively. But isn't it better to question what might be rather than to throw up out hands in defeat and be content in ignorance?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I think that people in this world who try to be reasonable have a problem with a God who is reasonable, and an entity or a person as such, becaues of current lack of scientific evidence for anything like him operating in this world. Therefore it is reasonable to assume from our perspective that an entity like him does not exist.

The answer to question why, could be in an unreasonable event/chance/something that does not exist/influence the world now nor did it influence it after it occured for example. Something that is not a person or entity/ omnipotent or omnipresent. That event could have happened or did happen in somehting that is outside the scope of the laws within this universe but it did trigger the creation of this universe, and the laws within it as such, perhaps purely by chance. And since we have no empirical idea about the existance of God, nor do we have and empirical idea about the set of circumstances in the 'area' where the universe was created we cannot have the right to claim one or the other as the reason for the existance of the universe, we can only claim that we don't know.

Or to annulate the existance of God from circumstantial evidence such as a claim that He does not appear in this world and if that is so (and the God is omnipresent for example) the God does not exist. Now you only have a problem with all the people who claim that they have a Godly experience and there are quite a few. Even as such they are presented to us as unscientific/ however for those people their experinces fill the void that science leaves as an answer to everything. So God might be just outside of the scope measurable by us, which could theoratically be the case, and you again cannot kill the idea that he exists.

So the present answer to why could be 1. chance (or some other unreasonable event)
2. God

Which one is your personal choice to make, no reason to believe in God - don't, have reasons to believe in God, examine them and make your choice.

I doubt you will ever have a higher reason to believe in chance apart from the 'most likely answer to: why?'

[Wraith]

--"Wraith: Is The Last Hero on paperback yet?"

Not that I've seen. It is a graphic novel, so I'm not even sure they're planning a paperback edition. Amazon didn't seem to have it listed.

--"Whay are you guys so obsessed with pink unicorns?"

The "Invisible Pink Unicorn" theory has been around quite a while. It's just fun, is all.

--"The pink unicorn makes no attempt to explain this - the existence of God does."

As has been pointed out, assuming the existence of a god does nothing to answer any of those questions, either. Not only do you get the same "what was before god?" and "where did god come from?" you also get the "why did god create a universe?" level of questions.

--"It cannot say why the physical laws are as they are, or where they come from fundamentally."

Actually, high-energy particle physics can at least partially answer some of these questions. Explorations of how the universe would be different with minor changes of physical laws are not outside the realms of science, nor are things like many worlds theory, which can also address at least some of this.

--"Was discovering that the protons are made of quarks and gluons laying just another unnecessary layer to the problem of the structure of matter, in your opinion?"

Of course not. They are actually there. Their existence has been determined by experimentation. These experiments can be reproduced independently by others.
In fact, the discoveries of things like quarks has helped move us closer to the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Knowing more about the fundamental particles allows us a better basis to make such theories on.

I think you've got the whole concept of unnecessary layers wrong.

--"There doesn't have to be any question about where God came from ."

Why doesn't there? Just saying that the laws of our universe don't apply to him doesn't exempt him from being open to question.
You've heard of the phrase "Deus Ex Machina" I assume? These kinds of claims are why that phrase is used as it is.

You're also begging the question of how something can exist outside of existence, but that's another matter.

Wraith
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you. If you really make them think they'll hate you."
-- Donald Marquis

[Tiamat]

This is a point that came up in our discussion on Friday night. Can you believe in the theory of evolution and believe in the existance of God?

Everything we learn in the bible is contrary to the evolution theory. So how can you believe in the fact that we decended from apes and yet still believe in God? If you subscribe to the evolutionist theory then are you not discarding the theory of a God that does exsist?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Tiamat
This is a point that came up in our discussion on Friday night. Can you believe in the theory of evolution and believe in the existance of God?

Sure you can. The existence of God does not stand or fall on whether the Creation myth is true or false, nor for that matter on whether the Bible is absolutely correct or not. Otherwise, science would have disproven the existence of God long ago.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Tiamat
This is a point that came up in our discussion on Friday night. Can you believe in the theory of evolution and believe in the existance of God?

I just can't believe in the theory of evolution, because in the real world little things like proteins and aminoacids don't just get connected neither transform themselves into something that seems to be well succeeded by chance. So I'm not the best person to answer... But I honestly think not...

Originally posted by Tiamat
Everything we learn in the bible is contrary to the evolution theory. So how can you believe in the fact that we decended from apes and yet still believe in God? If you subscribe to the evolutionist theory then are you not discarding the theory of a God that does exsist?

Well, if you believe that the world was litterally made in 6 of our days, then that could be something that could be in conflict. But since the Bible doesn't specify wether it's 6 days by our cronology or not, I don't think where the problem might be.
Now if you believe that we are "advanced" apes, then yes, that is clearly in conflict.