Existence of God(s)

Tea wrote:The theory of an expanding universe hinges entirely on an unrecorded and unproven interpretation of what is commonly called: Red Shift.

Could you please explain this further? In my understanding Red Shift is a recorded and proven phenomenon that occurs in sound waves as well as light waves. You seem educated enough to understand the theory behind it so I will not patronize you by explaining it, but I am confused about how you can then deny that the evidence suggests the universe is expanding.

I suppose this question can be applied to evolution as well, but it looks like you already have a conversation about that going on in another forum. Myself, I am something of a hybrid creation-evolutionist. I was brought up in a church that taught creationism, but when I began researching evolution I could not deny the evidence for it.

Jookia wrote:
Having somebody with cancer be healed

Before I put in the effort to explain why such an experiment could not prove God's existence I would like a more detailed and thoughtful answer please. This is too broad for me to be able to shoot down as cleanly and effectively as I would like.

Jookia wrote:

Alambil wrote:IThe moral law has not been proven scientifically, but I can assert that it exists because I find it inside of myself. Don't you?

Actually no, my morals differ based on my opinions. I find no universal law, just a group of people's ideas influencing each other. A few years ago I was very anti-abortion but today I'm not. How could this change if there was some kind of moral law?

Thank you for pointing this out! I think I did a rather bad job of explaining what I meant by the moral law in my first post and abortion is a perfect example to explain what I mean.

Everyone I know who is anti-abortion is so because they feel the embryo is a human being. Everyone I know who is pro-choice sees the embryo as a cluster of cells and a part of the woman's body - not as a human being in its own right. The moral law is the same for both groups; both agree that it is wrong to murder. They can disagree on abortion because some think it is murder and some do not.

As you can see, people can still disagree about ethical issues even if they hold the same moral law. Does my definition of the moral law make sense?

Jookia wrote:

dealing with it wrote:Jookia:

Scientism is one danger; pseudoscience is another. I don't see why it's so hard to admit that the existence of God/gods is outside the boundaries of science. I'm an atheist and I understand this.

I agree that it's a danger, but that's not what I take issue with. What makes you think it's outside the boundaries of science?

Is belief in God falsifiable?

Tea wrote:The theory of an expanding universe hinges entirely on an unrecorded and unproven interpretation of what is commonly called: Red Shift.

Alambil wrote:Could you please explain this further?

For a fun example, let us take the difference between Mercury and Venus. Common thought presumes that Mercury's surface temperature would be higher than that of Venus because it is closer to the sun. More direct investigation has proven that the reverse is true. It is important to understand that the former conclusion of proximity being equable to absorption of heat is an assumption. It is not a fact.


Now, about Red Shift specifically:

It is important to understand that the Friedmann-Lemaitre, "expanding wavelength," hypothesis is exactly that. A hypothesis. Both Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaitre were individuals that avidly ascribed to the theory of the Big Bang. This theory is also nothing more than a theory which finds its roots in evolutionary theory...which finds its historical roots in mythology.

Even I found that last fact difficult to believe, but it has been verified.

The Friedmann-Lemaitre hypothesis is a theory. And all of it hinges on the point of observation. In astronomy there is a Cosmic Principle which assumes ( another theory ) that the universe is in all directions and locations homogenous and isotropic. In other words, "Every star and star system in the universe is like every other star and star system with only very minor variation. All of space in the universe is like every other point of space in the universe." It is also important to understand that this Cosmic Principle is...influenced by the assumption of the Origin Explosion and the interpretation ( Mercury and Venus would like to say, "Hello." ) that all space-time expands.

When looking into the deep pool of the vastness of space one can not say, "I have a theory, based on a theory, based on a theory, so there-fore I must be right."

Now, back to the point of observation:

Observed, and also demonstrable, data is the foundation of true knowledge with regard to science. Humanity must construct a telescopic observatory in at least two different galaxies in order to prove that light-waves automatically expand through the space-time between those two points. Also, travel between those two points is necessary to remove unforeseen circumstances from the list of variables which will compose the final equation. Until this occurs, the dynamic-expanding space-time model of the universe ( theory ) based on Edwin Hubble's 1929 findings is an assumption. The assumption in the Friedmann-Lemaitre equation has not yet been experimentally verified.


And...just for fun, I will try to apply all of the above to the present thread.

Many human beings use their present point of observation to conclude that there is no super-natural agency which presides over the universe. Their logic is, "I haven't died yet, so there must be no deity."

---

dealing with it wrote:Is belief in God falsifiable?

I once believed in Evolution. Then, I falsified my belief in it. Therefore, my belief in evolution was not absolute.

Tea wrote:

dealing with it wrote:Is belief in God falsifiable?

I once believed in Evolution. Then, I falsified my belief in it. Therefore, my belief in evolution was not absolute.

Because it is falsifiable, evolution is a scientific theory. On the other hand, belief in the existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be falsified. Someone who tries to prove that God exists is not doing science, but pseudoscience; someone who tries to disprove the existence of God scientifically is attempting the impossible. A different method -- be it philosophic, poetic, or religious -- is needed to discuss God.

An experimenter always must attempt to disprove his or her hypothesis. If disproof is theoretically impossible, then there is no falsifiability, and we are beyond the limits of science.

What a fascinating thing to say.

I have only to add that, "The permanency of belief is determined by the source of that belief." If a belief comes from a Conditional Value then that belief may also be conditional. If a belief comes from an Absolute Value it is possible that the belief could be absolute.

Tea: Thank you very much for your explanation; I feel like I learned a lot about how you think (I do not mean to sound presumptuous; one of my favorite things about debating is finding people who think in a very different way from myself). It is true that scientific theories can only be models that fit the facts because it is impossible to prove them. This is what Steven Hawking calls "model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only where it agrees with observation." I feel that Mr. Hawking has a very honest view of science in this respect. That being said, I do feel comfortable believing that the universe is expanding because that would explain Red Shift as well as many other scientific observations. It is a model that "agrees with observation."

Tea wrote:
For a fun example, let us take the difference between Mercury and Venus. Common thought presumes that Mercury's surface temperature would be higher than that of Venus because it is closer to the sun. More direct investigation has proven that the reverse is true. It is important to understand that the former conclusion of proximity being equable to absorption of heat is an assumption. It is not a fact.

First off, the reason why Mercury has a lower temperature than Venus is because Venus has an atmosphere that is much thicker than ours made mostly of carbon dioxide. Heat from sunlight in Venus has a very hard time escaping, even on the cold side. On the other hand, Mercury has no atmosphere, and the side farthest from the sun is exposed to the cold of space, allowing Mercury to expel any absorbed heat much faster. If they had the same atmospheres, then Mercury would have a higher temperature. You have to remember to take into account all variables.

Tea wrote:It is important to understand that the Friedmann-Lemaitre, "expanding wavelength," hypothesis is exactly that. A hypothesis. Both Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaitre were individuals that avidly ascribed to the theory of the Big Bang. This theory is also nothing more than a theory which finds its roots in evolutionary theory...which finds its historical roots in mythology.

Before I continue, it should be worth pointing out the scientific definition of theory:
"A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine." You seem to be applying the layman definition by assuming that theory means "Just an idea that a couple people thought up. A random stab in the dark." In fact, an unproven theory is a hypothesis. People commonly but incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing. Examples:
Number Theory is the branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of numbers. Theories don't get much more proven than this.
Quantum Theory is the theory that describes how and why atomic particles behave as they do. It has allowed us to build computers and lasers. There's nothing "theoretical" about it.
Stress Theory is what engineers use to build buildings, bridges, and keep the wings on airplanes. It works.

Now, you seem to be under the severely wrong impression that evolution is completely unproven. We know it happens. We use it in Medicine every day to treat bacterial and viral diseases. Biologists agree that descent with modification(aka evolution) is one of the most reliably established facts in science.
Source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=47
Read the whole book if you want, it's free to read online and I enjoyed it.

I'd also like to see where it was verified that scientific evolution has its roots in Mythology, because I've been searching for it throughout reading this post and have come up with nothing but biased articles from creationist websites, which do not count as verification.

Also, you've mistakenly called the big bang theory based in evolution. The two theories are in two separate branches of science and are entirely unrelated. Evolution deals with the origin of life(abiogenesis) on the planet after the planet came to be and how we've evolved and advanced since, the big bang theory deals with how the universe came to be and how it continues to change and evolve. Evolution does not rely on the big bang theory being true, or vice versa.

Tea wrote:The Friedmann-Lemaitre hypothesis is a theory. And all of it hinges on the point of observation. In astronomy there is a Cosmic Principle which assumes ( another theory ) that the universe is in all directions and locations homogenous and isotropic. In other words, "Every star and star system in the universe is like every other star and star system with only very minor variation. All of space in the universe is like every other point of space in the universe." It is also important to understand that this Cosmic Principle is...influenced by the assumption of the Origin Explosion and the interpretation ( Mercury and Venus would like to say, "Hello." ) that all space-time expands.

You seem to be mistaken about the cosmological principle. What it means by isotropic is that "the same physical laws apply throughout, not that physical objects are the same. What it implies is that things can be different(i.e, a our sun is different from the earth, our galaxy is different from a black hole, etc) so long as they don't violate the laws of physics, which they don't. Since the universe appears isotropic from Earth, the cosmological principle can be derived from the simpler Copernican principle, which states that there is no special observer or vantage point. To say otherwise implies that the Earth is special, which is a very conceited claim with no evidence. Additionally, astronomical redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogeneous, supporting the Cosmological principle that the Universe looks the same in all directions.

Tea wrote:When looking into the deep pool of the vastness of space one can not say, "I have a theory, based on a theory, based on a theory, so there-fore I must be right."

It is more akin to saying, "I have this theory with tons of verifiable and observational evidence, based on a very widely accepted theory, completely unrelated to evolution, so therefor, I am most likely correct."

When one looks into the deep pool of the vastness of space, it is much easier to say, "God did it, and I don't care how, it seems too much work to find out."
Remember that the big bang does not imply that god does or doesn't exist. Neither does evolution. By saying that god is capable of doing, or that he did do, these things, you support our case. By saying that none of it happened and that he just made everything, you go against mountains of evidence, and by saying he couldn't you attempt to limit god. So either you can accept the evidence for what it is and if you are a believer in god, understand that he could have done this, or you can reject it all and admit that you are ignoring facts and evidence, or you can try to limit god. It's your choice.

Tea wrote:Observed, and also demonstrable, data is the foundation of true knowledge with regard to science. Humanity must construct a telescopic observatory in at least two different galaxies in order to prove that light-waves automatically expand through the space-time between those two points. Also, travel between those two points is necessary to remove unforeseen circumstances from the list of variables which will compose the final equation. Until this occurs, the dynamic-expanding space-time model of the universe ( theory ) based on Edwin Hubble's 1929 findings is an assumption. The assumption in the Friedmann-Lemaitre equation has not yet been experimentally verified.

Yes, to know absolutely for sure, we must do this. Of course, just because we aren't 100% sure does not mean that we aren't right. We've taken all the evidence we have, and we've made a guess, but it is an educated guess, based on evidence that, without this theory, would have no other explanation.

Tea wrote:And...just for fun, I will try to apply all of the above to the present thread.

Many human beings use their present point of observation to conclude that there is no super-natural agency which presides over the universe. Their logic is, "I haven't died yet, so there must be no deity."

That is not what is concluded from big bang evidence. What is concluded is that, supernatural being or not, the universe came to be like this and has aged like this. Whether a god did it or not is irrelevant. I believe the logic is more akin to, "I haven't died yet, so there is no way to know whether a deity exists or not."

Tea wrote:I once believed in Evolution. Then, I falsified my belief in it. Therefore, my belief in evolution was not absolute.

Belief in evolution is not a requirement. It isn't something you have faith in. Disbelieving in evolution is like disbelieving in gravity. It's there, we can see it in action, and no matter what we do it will continue to happen. Like I said above, we use it in medicine everyday. The next time you get a flu shot, or take an antibiotic, evolution helped create those. Our bodies use evolution when we are infected. Do you know why you only get chicken pox once? It's because our bodies make antibodies that are specifically designed to kill the disease, so if we ever get infected again, we kill it fast. What I've described is microevolution, and if microevolution is true, then macroevolution is true.

TL;DR, big bang and evolution do not disprove god. If for some reason you think they do, you are limiting god by saying he could not have worked that way.

Edit: I apologize if my post is convoluted. The gist I wanted to get at was that while the Big Bang is not 100% fact, there are mountains of evidence for it as well as for an expanding universe, and it would just be silly to ignore it.

Solo Wing Pixy wrote: Our bodies use evolution when we are infected. Do you know why you only get chicken pox once? It's because our bodies make antibodies that are specifically designed to kill the disease, so if we ever get infected again, we kill it fast. What I've described is microevolution, and if microevolution is true, then macroevolution is true.

"Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve."
-Douglas J. Futuyma

Alambil wrote:

Solo Wing Pixy wrote: Our bodies use evolution when we are infected. Do you know why you only get chicken pox once? It's because our bodies make antibodies that are specifically designed to kill the disease, so if we ever get infected again, we kill it fast. What I've described is microevolution, and if microevolution is true, then macroevolution is true.

"Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve."
-Douglas J. Futuyma

You are very much right, that was my mistake and I retract it. However, it still stands that evolution is used by modern medicine to develop vaccines and antibiotics. Additionally, what you said can be applied to this, making Tea's earlier argument that much less compelling.

Tea wrote:...evolution does not function on the scale of a species.

Quite true. I thing when Tea said that (s)he was really referring to natural selection. What do you say, Tea?

...my better judgement is encouraging me to remain silent.

But what kind of discussion would that make?

I did specifically reference natural selection when I stated:

Tea wrote:Natural selection is a symptom, not a law. Natural selection does not function on the scale of a species, it functions on the scale of the individual.

And I admit that some of it was a bit generalistic. There are other variables and traits which are preserved by the survival of an individual other than genetic. Social, integral, and medicinal knowledges can be preserved by surviving an encounter with a predator and even animals are capable of communicating what they have learned. Usually through play.

But, I think that I am being asked more than my view of Natural Selection. There seems to be an implied sub-text of, "What do you think about evolution and its scale?" So in order to respond, considering my earlier thoughts on the vastness of space, I will go to the trouble of saying, "The improbability of two human beings in the same generation suffering the same exact mutation, causing an improved alteration to the life-form as a whole ( instead of a disease ), is astronomically high."


As I said previously, "Evolution occurs daily within all manner of organisms. This evolution is normal and natural provided that it operates within the established genetic patterns of that organism."

Tea wrote: "The improbability of two human beings in the same generation suffering the same exact mutation, causing an improved alteration to the life-form as a whole ( instead of a disease ), is astronomically high."

Yes, it is. But even a 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance will inevitably occur if you repeat it enough. The Universe is astronomically large, and has been around for an very long time, so by constantly repeating that astronomical chance over and over, it is inevitable that it would occur.

I've always thought it is interesting that in a scenario in which our universe is either infinite, or 1 in an infinite amount of universes, that because we repeat that chance over an infinite spectrum, somewhere out there is an exact replica of earth, with exactly the same people, doing exactly the same thing. It's all just a matter of repeating that minuscule chance enough times until you get the exact same result.

Side note: I was confused for a moment by your wording. You said "the improbability...is astronomically high" which is the same as saying "the probability...is extremely low".

Tea: It is not necessary for two people to have the same mutation in order to pass it on to their offspring. In my (incomplete) understanding of the evolutionary theory, mutations are more important in their contribution to genetic variation rather than large and beneficial changes in phenotype. As long as there is genetic variation, natural selection will favor those individuals best suited to the present environment.

This is an interesting paper you might be interested in: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC94481/ - "if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today."

But we are off topic. No one has yet made a rebuttal to my assertion that society cannot be the source of the moral law and God can.

Well, I think I've stated earlier that morality can have arisen from society because in general, actions we consider moral serve to protect and advance the societal structure. If it were deemed okay to kill people willy nilly, any society we have would fall apart. Initially, this was all that kept people together, but now that we've advanced to the point that a murder or a theft here and there wouldn't ruin society, we've invented laws to punish people more severely than just with just a feeling of guilt.

You likened God ordering the genocide of a people to a judge condemning a criminal to death. In one aspect, I agree with you. Were god the source of the moral law, he would be within his rights to enforce it and pass judgement on those who break it, even if that judgement can be deemed immoral. That said, what did all of those societies do to deserve genocide? No society is so corrupt that everyone deserves to die. Now, I admit that I am not the foremost scholar on the bible, but aren't some of the instances when god has people killed because they offended him or his servants, like when the young boys made fun of the bald priest in kings and God had them all mauled killed by bears? That is hardly a justifiable reason to kill someone.

Also, at least in the old testament, god supports and endorses human slavery, and not just as punishment. Under no circumstance should slavery be a morally okay thing to do, even as punishment.

This isn't to say he is strictly a bad god, but by my reckoning he cannot be the sole moral authority.

It is not important whether God exists or not. it is more important as what God stands for. God stands for the belief that the events happening in our lives are not random but that they have a purpose; that we have a purpose. Not knowing something as important as, "Why are we here?" really bugs most of the us; most of us with the time to really think about the bigger picture and not worry about whether we have enough to buy lunch or pay the electricity bills. God stands for the belief that when a loved one dies because an accident or a natural event, it is not just happenstance that that person happened to be in that place at that time.

FinalOne: No room for preach here. It is about the existence of deities, not just the Judeo-Christian god. Look at my post about mother Kali. And life doesn't need a purpose because everyone has their own purpose. No divinity gives you a purpose of life. It is for the individual to decide.

Can we stop discussing evolution here please? This thread isn't about what it is and isn't.

As to the original topic of the existence of a god (or multiple gods), I have a definite answer:
It is impossible for humans to definitely prove the existence or non-existence of god(s).

The reasons is that nobody could even define what a god is, regardless of being of monotheistic or polytheistic faith. You could use some vague terms and concepts, and people might even understand what you're saying, but that's it. I'm not saying that this is a matter of preferences, i.e. a "your god isn't cool enough to be a god" sort of thing.

A god is a transcendental being beyond human understanding. Even if we assume that a god aware of its godly status (compared to humans) does exist, it may be impossible for us to witness or deduce any of their actions, because said god is on a whole other level of existence from us. It would be kind of like trying to describe a 3-dimensional object after having seen only one of its 2-dimensional sides, if you weren't aware that a third dimension even existed.

In conclusion, I'm sort of on the fence here; I don't believe in either the presence or absence of a god in general. What I am certain of, however, is that anyone who claims to really understand or know anything about their god is horribly mistaken. And since religion is a human concept to begin with, I guess you could call me a radical atheist.

Sench: Nah, radical/militant atheists think they know the non-existence of deities. Moderate atheists just dont believe in gods. And your position would be strong/hard agnosticism (and agnostic atheist).

Solo Wing Pixy wrote:What did all of those societies do to deserve genocide? No society is so corrupt that everyone deserves to die. Now, I admit that I am not the foremost scholar on the bible, but aren't some of the instances when god has people killed because they offended him or his servants, like when the young boys made fun of the bald priest in kings and God had them all mauled killed by bears? That is hardly a justifiable reason to kill someone.

Also, at least in the old testament, god supports and endorses human slavery, and not just as punishment. Under no circumstance should slavery be a morally okay thing to do, even as punishment.

This isn't to say he is strictly a bad god, but by my reckoning he cannot be the sole moral authority.

I would not say that God supported slavery so much as limited and regulated it, but your point still stands. I might argue that since God ‘owns’ everyone and everything, He may give it to whom he wishes, but I don’t know that this would make His actions seem any more “moral;” it doesn’t to me at least.

When I look at the Bible as a whole, it is clear that God meant the laws set down in the Old Testament to be a precursor to the “fulfillment of the law” where doing the right thing would be more than just following a bunch of rules. Perhaps he allowed slavery, etc. for the same reason that he allowed divorce: "For your hardness of heart he (Moses) wrote you this commandment.”

As for genocide, I believe that the idea behind it was this: if the Israelites were allowed to be surrounded by people who worshiped other gods, they would be caught up in idolatry. In fact, they did spare one group and that is precisely what happened.

To be completely honest with you, I have a very difficult time accepting that God ordered the Israelites to commit genocide; it is one of the many things in the Bible that I struggle to understand. In order to do so, I look at it through the lens of the New Testament where God’s nature is more fully revealed. What I find there is that the quality of perfection that God demands is utterly impossible for us to attain (as the Israelites found out time after time). Furthermore, falling short of the moral standards God sets for us is cause for death. This death has been spoken of in two ways: the first is punishment; the second is a separation from the Source of life. Either way, God could destroy all of us and be perfectly within His rights. Instead, He took our place.

If the Christian God exists, I think that the sacrifice He made on the cross is a strong indicator of His absolute goodness and His ability to be the source of the moral law.

That being said, I would now like to address society as the source of the moral law. Recall that you said:

Solo Wing Pixy wrote: Under no circumstance should slavery be a morally okay thing to do…

If society determines what is right and wrong, how can you say this? It was not very long ago that American society determined that slavery was perfectly OK (as long as the slaves were black). According to you, if society says it is right, then it is right. But notice: even then the people living in that society were fighting against the moral law which was telling them otherwise. They got around it by claiming (and making themselves believe) that their slaves were sub-human. What they did not do was accept their slaves as full human beings and then change the moral law to fit what was best for “society” at the time.

The moral law runs much deeper than society, but society often has a hand in influencing how people interpret it and which parts of it they try to circumscribe.

TheFinalOne wrote:It is not important whether God exists or not. it is more important as what God stands for.

This is only true if God does not exist. If he does exist, His existence is of the utmost importance and what he stands for doesn't mean squat.