Tolben Mølgaard“I don’t know, therefore God” is an obvious fallacy.
But "I dont know therefore no god" is obviously an equally obvious fallacy. To which many otherwise sharp-minded people subscribe in the name of science.
It is every bit as "Scientific" to proclaim the existence of god as it is to claim god's non-existence. (I.e. not scientific at all).
—
edit: i am not arguing the existence of god, I am merely pointing out that science has no plausible explanation for the existence of everything, and in the absence of a plausible explanation, it is decidedly un-scientific to discard the possibility of something god-like as the creator of all the stuff that we see around us, and for which science hasn't got the slightest clue how it came to be.
"God" is as good an explanation as anything science can put forth today. Actually a "god" is considerably less imaginative than some of the ideas that science has presented.
Moreover "god" is the only theory so far, since Science in no way or form has made any attempt to present anything remotely plausible as to explain the existence of matter and life.
Science has decided upon a Big Bang theory which may be right, but science has no explanation whatsoever to the obvious question of the initial impulse. And while the theory may be a wonderful description of early events, it is certainly no explanation as to why it happened and what triggered it.
You may of course believe in god or godlessness to your hearts fullest content. I really dont care much about whether you feel spiritual or not, but be careful not to proclaim your personal beliefs or opinions about god as having a scientific foundation. There is no such.
Currently at least.
Fred-Rick Schermer > Tolben MølgaardA good reply, Torben, much appreciated.
I am a structural philosopher, and the comment I have to make is that the scientific structure is distinct from the religious structure.
With a wink to Gödel, it would not be smart to use either structure and demand the other structure submits itself to the first structure.
—
In Religion, we find the following two distinct structural setups:
Monotheistic structure (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, minor branches in Hinduism)
Non-monotheistic structure (Hinduism, Buddhism)
in Science, we can recognize the same distinctions, with scientists adhering to the idea that:
There is a unified field of forces possible
There is no unified field of forces possible
I hope you recognize right away how the discussion about God is often one that is placed far away from reality, and that makes very little sense.
The word God in Greek is Theo, and I hope you see that the scientific word theory is based on Theo. What that means is that the original word means that God can only be the actual God if connected indeed to our reality. Anything less is not worth anyone’s time.
Just like there can be low-quality scientific theories (also not worth our time), there are low-quality ideas about God. Only when aiming for God as part of our actual reality, only then will we end up with high-quality ideas about God, just like only high-quality theories sustain a long life in science.
Just like one cannot use the grammar rules of Mandarin to English or vice versa, no one should demand that religion must follow the rules of science (or vice versa).
Must we make God real? Yes, absolutely, and that is actually a very easy exercise that should satisfy everyone.
Anthony G. Gelbert > Fred-Rick SchermerWell, our universe is not random, as all those very precise physical constants that caused matter to coalesce after the Big Bang prove. So, our universe has a Creator. That is, a superbeing outside of time and space who intelligently designed it. The “Creator of the Universe” is an adequate definition of “God”. The atheists hate that definition, for obvious reasons. So, they came up with the “Multiverse” wishful thinking, which is totally devoid of any scientific evidence whatsoever. They are as math challenged as they are cursed by magical thinking.
Fred-Rick Schermer > Anthony G. GelbertI dislike the idea of a multiverse very much, Anthony, so we can shake hands there. It is such a weird concept, completely a brain fart.
Yet in as far as the word God is used, the original God can no longer exist as the exact same God today because God had to use parts of God to create creation. It is a brain fart of a different kind to think that God could have willed creation from nothing.
So, God split into two realities: the very large remnant still in original format (but diminished), and the material outcomes (in which we have linear matter with protons and neutrons and non-linear matter with electrons).
As such, there is no Almighty to God because the split that occurred is the highest aspect. This is much like space being the only infinite aspect in our universe. Even God as God exists today must bow to Space being larger than God.
Curious how you will respond.
Anthony G. Gelbert > Fred-Rick SchermerWell, I like the fact that you have thought seriously about this matter.
I understand you to mean that a “brain fart” is the act of failing to use evidence based critical thinking to arrive at a conclusion about some subject matter. Okay, going with that, the “multiverse”, a concept totally within the realm of science fiction, becomes a brain fart when it is championed by atheists as “fact”.
On the issue of God (i.e. a Superbeing that exists outside of time and space) ceasing to be Almighty (and therefore, no longer “God”) the instant God Created the Universe, I don’t see that as a no-go situation for God.
Your assumption appears to be based on God being the servant of the physical constants that govern all matter in the Universe, rather than the Designer and Creator of them.
IMHO, God is a Spirit. God is not subject to entropy, E=MC squared and so on. The Creation of the physical Universe did not take anything at all “out” of God, because there is nothing in God that is limited by material reality.
The only way your assumption would logically relegate the belief that there is an Almighty God that Created our Universe, and all Life in it, to the status of “brain fart”, is IF the material universe is all there is. I am certain that is a flawed assumption.
Since I have quite a bit of, admittedly anecdotal, irrrefutable evidence that there is a spiritual reality outside of the material cause and effect reality, I see no impediment to the belief that God continued to be God Almighty after Creating our Universe.
All that said, if you firmly believe that Atheism is “reality based” and Theism is a “brain fart”, aren’t you buying into the “random” universe meme pushed 24/7 by atheists everywhere?
How do you rationalize all those extremely precise physical constants evidencing that our universe is NOT the result of random undirected processes? Science has now irrefutably proven that our Universe is NON-Random. A logical person must then accept the fact that a Superbeing Created this Universe. That ‘WHO DID IT?’ “buck” cannot be “passed” on to the “What Superbeing ET created the Superbeing that Created this Universe?” grasped straw, though there are quite a few atheists out there who support that semantic legerdemain.
When you think about it, what atheists peddle is a gross misrepresentation of reality and lying to the degree that would make the most abusive adds on media blush.
Darwinian Theory true believers (SEE: "Evolutionary" Biologist Dawkins' Book "Blind 🙄 Watch Maker" monument to disingenuous legerdemain) are willing to twist and contort even the fundamental requirement of the Scientific Method to invalidate the "Random Universe" Evolution Hypothesis in ways that cater to entrenched university ivory tower defenders of Evolution to a degree that would rival a toy balloon-dog at a children’s party (SEE: irrefutable empirical evidence of several non-random, extremely precise physical constants that determined, before the first atom of hydrogen came into existence, the exact physical constant for the force of gravity, by several THOUSAND places to the RIGHT of the decimal point, that, if greater or lesser, atoms could not even coalesce into existence after the Big Bang).
It is this kind of academic institutionalized acquiescence to atheism based Darwinan ideology that has led many to rightfully conclude that Darwinian "Theory" is an athiest belief system masquerading as a "Scientifc" Theory for the ethically bankrupt purpose of promoting the "might equals right" socially destructive ideology of Social Darwinism.
It’s the SOCIAL DARWINISM, stupid!
Darwinists with advanced degrees in "Evolutionary" Biology, firmly ensconced in their "We Are Scientists" Ivory Towers in Academia for more than a century, have been "self-esteemed" into levels of grandiose narcissism that I suspect is unparalleled in human history. When you try to point out to these scientists that they are unscientifically ignoring those MANY extremely precise physical constants that evidence the fact that, by any Darwinian stretch of the imagination, our universe is not the product of random undirected processes, you might as well be talking to a box of rocks. These militant atheists KNOW EVERYTHING and are absolutely certain of it.
Whenever a Darwinist "Scientist" starts telling you how "ignorant" you are of the "science" of evolution by condescendingly pointing out your "lack" of academic credentials, followed by questioning your ability to reason and, when that don't work, questioning your intelligence, remember this wise old saying:
Never buy something when the seller tells you that you are too dumb to understand the product.
Fred-Rick Schermer > Anthony G. GelbertYou are not reading what I am writing, Anthony, so there is very little to reply to since you are putting words on my side that are not the intended message.
I will take the blame. I was not clear enough in my writing.
But do allow me to undermine the word Almighty, because it is a word that cannot be.
All = 1
Mighty = 1st
Never ever can there be anything that is both 1 and 1st at the same time. So, it is a brain fart, just like a teacher wanting his students to all do better on a test than their average result. The construct cannot be and is therefore established by a brain that did not mature in this respect.
God can be Mightiest, of course, and God can even be All. Yet God cannot be All and Mightiest at the same time/in the same construct. We need to have two separate constructs about God to declare both different things.
————
If we start out with God (which is a choice), then we can demand that we make this God real.
To make this God real, we have to desire a real answer to the question How did God do it?
By saying that God created creation from nothing (or: at will), we have two steps to accept based on nothing much, and that undermines the original step that we accepted.
If we want to accept the option to see God as real, we must then next get a real answer and not an additional step of acceptance. The structure is extremely weak with two such steps.
I hope you see that we have to use our brains to get an answer to how God created creation and that we can indeed have a baby in the bathwater, but that we should not drown the baby by adding more bathwater. We have to make God real, structurally real.
———
Saying this in a scientific manner, we have three options from a structural perspective. Two are not possible, but our brains can see all three structures.
1. Everything material that exists now derived from nothing.
2. Everything material that exists now derived from everything that existed prior.
3. Everything material that exists now derived from a part of what existed prior.
Only option 3 is logical. Options #1 and #2 are not possible.
With #1: one cannot have something material come from nothing.
With #2: one cannot end up with a material outcome if that outcome was based on the full set of whatever it was that existed prior. Had that been the case, then this would last a zap (say 15 seconds max), and then quickly return to its original state. A change of 100% is not a stable outcome and will always return to its original state.
Only #3 is available to us. No other structure is structurally possible. A fundamental separation is part of the structure — there is no other option.
Same for God. We can make God real. Yet God’s creation has to be based on parts of God being used for that creation. A separation occurred 13.8 billion years ago among that prior state.
———
Thank you, Anthony, for your reply. I did appreciate it, but it did not address the finer points I hope are more clear now. Apologies therefore that I wasn’t clearer right away.
Anthony G. Gelbert > Fred-Rick SchermerOh, I’m reading it all right, you just refuse to accept that it is logical to include the following option in your list of possible options:
4. Everything material that exists now was created by (not “derived” from) the almighty superbeing (i.e. God) spirit that exists outside of space and time.
I know you cannot accept that because you cannot accept that there is anything more than the material Universe. Thus, it is logical for you to deny the most basic attributes of the Superbeing that created our Universe.
IMHO, your basic premise is flawed, so your conclusions, derived from that flawed premise, are erroneous.
As to your, admittedly erudite, semantics based interpretations of word definitions for the purpose of excluding any adjective describing one of the attributes of God (e.g. Almighty) from rational discussion, see Procrustean Bed.
If you wish to Procrustean Bed your way out of the irrefutable (i.e. empirically measured) science of the physical constants, thousands of places to the right of the decimal point, that evidence the inconvenient fact (for you atheists) that our Universe is not the result of random undirected processes, but an intelligently designed product of a Superbeing that Created it from absolutely nothing material, then you are quite right to assume that further attempts on your part to convince me that your reasoning is “logical” and mine is “illogical” are futile.
Atheists, in the face of hard scientifc evidence to the contrary, firmly believe that Life in our Universe is the product of random undirected processes. Then, adding a second level to their flawed reasoning, they have the audacity to firmly assert that humans, allegedly the product of random undirected processes, can have an ethical worldview. In view of this self serving illogical assertion, their claim that belief in the almighty God is “illogical” is the epitome of irony.
I just ask you to try to remember that billions of humans do their level best to treat other humans as they wish to be treated because of their firm Faith in God. To you, these people are “sadly deluded”. Not only is this presumption unfairly disdaining the reasoning ability of billions of humans, but, for those you convince that belief in God is “illogical”, a dangerous, ethics rejecting, socially destructive worldview.
"if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted" -- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
Human Inequity is directly proportional to Human Iniquity. - A. G. Gelbert
SOURCE: https://www.quora.com/What-caused-the-Big-Bang-6/answers/74541372?comment_id=304391733&comment_type=2