Axiom: God exists (just assume...)

God can do anything. His name is Omni.

Can God read his future mind?
Can God be in two places in time at once?
Can God think he made a mistake?

You have many unlisted axioms. For one, you're assuming that God exists within time as we know it, or at all. Furthermore, you're assuming that God would be subject to right and wrong as we know it, and not that right and wrong is subject to God.

It doesn't necessarily say that were assuming god is subject to right and wrong. His last question is just that can he think that he made a mistake.

No, god can't exist in more then two places at once. Reasoning, it would be weird to have more then one "god" or a duplicate at the same time.
Yes he can think he had made a mistake, but it doesnt matter becuase he can always take it back.
Forgot the third question. sorry.

He edited his post, then. When I replied, the last question was "Can God be wrong?"



Again, unlisted axioms. If God exists within what we know to be the Universe, then God probably could not exist in multiple places at once. However, if God exists outside of that, then how would God be subject to the rules we know?

My basic response to any question of this sort is "Have fun thinking about it, but whatever answer you get, don't rely on it being right." I mean, seriously, almost any time you have God, God made the Universe. After you make something, I'm pretty sure that you're allowed to say that you're not subject to its rules unless you so choose.

So if we can't see it, who cares? We can't observe a photon, so how do we know it is there? It just seems like things work as if they were there because it's a simpler hypothesis.
Consider this: gravity does not exist. There is just an invisible hand that can't be detected which is pulling things at exactly the right acceleration so Newton's laws work.

"The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

We apply Occam's Razor. A universe without a god is simpler than a universe with one, because it wouldn't raise the question: Who designed the designer? So these questions are just an abstaction.

C. Jung said: "I do not believe, I know." Really?

...What?

If we can't see what? Are you replying to me? I said nothing about something not being able to be seen.

Also, Occam's Razor is crap. It assumes that God would be within the Universe, and subject to the rules of needing to be created. Again I say, the created cannot hope to subject the creator to the rules of the created. A computer program cannot say to the programmer "Who programmed and debugged you? What platform are you designed for?"

They are fun philosophical/theological questions, yes. But they do not, by any means, teach us anything absolutely. The very definition of God prohibits that.

Edit: By the way, we *can* observe photons. In fact, we have photon detectors built right into our bodies. They're called eyes.

Why do you assume that science is the only way to know anything?

You are making assumptions. What is "science?"

Um, was that supposed to be turning the use of assumptions back on him? 'cause it failed miserably. Science is a term which is defined, not an axiom that needs to be assumed.

I admit my mistake. I meant to say if science is assumed to mean any systematic knowledge, what is there besides science?

Occam's Razor is far from "crap". Occam's Razor says that the simpler answer is more likely to be true and more useful. A computer program can, very prudently, decide that, since a programmer raises more questions than it answers, it is far more useful to assume that, for practical purposes, one does not exist. Sure, there could be a god, but I have yet to see any evidence that one has ever interfered with the universe that isn't better and more simply explained by other means. So even if there is an observer god(or one that alters the universe at will and subsequently rewrites the laws of physics and the memories of any being with one such that the current state of the universe is consistent with history), for all practical purposes there might as well not be one. Unless a god takes an active, observable presence in the same physical universe we reside in, the contemplation of said god is pointless.



No, we don't observe photons with our eyes, we observe light. We do not "see" photons of differing trajectories and such whizzing about us, we see magnitudes and hues of some essence which is objectively impossible to define. Likewise we do not "feel" electrons moving from atom to atom with our bodies, we feel a "shock": a likewise indefinable sensation associated with "electricity". Electrons and photons are the attempts at hypothesizing what the carriers of "electricity" and "light" are; the physical sources of the sensations we feel. That was the entire point of the argument: that we often come up with purely theoretical, and sometimes strictly untestable, reasons for why the universe is as we observe it to be, practically isolated from the observations they describe.

I think anyone who believes science is the only way to knowledge is sacrificing the search for truth and meaning for the overrated virtue of reliability.

Light, which exists in tiny "packets" called photons...

Your hypothesis is testable and has been found to be wrong. Electrons too, both are testable hypothesis. (Assuming, of course, science. Don't come back and point your finger at this when I mention assumptions later.)

As for the rest of your post, it entirely misses the point that there is absolutely nothing prohibiting God to exist outside the Universe, and thus a Universe without a creator is not necessarily simpler than one with a creator, as the one with a creator does not need that creator to exist within itself and be subject to its rules, thus questions are not raised by default.

Furthermore, saying that assuming no God exists is simpler and prudent for practical purposes is idiotic, as it assumes that said God does not interact with the Universe. For one, assuming that there is an afterlife and you need to believe in said God to get into Heaven, you have hurt yourself quite a bit. Furthermore, God could say one day "Hey, I'm sick of that guy ignoring me. Here's a car accident but you're still alive."

Note that this does not mean that one should believe that there is a God by default, it means that the possibility should not be baselessly cast aside due to one's conception of everything being subject to his perception. Bad things could happen if you assume that there is a God rather than not if there is no God, or if you choose to believe in the wrong one. There is no scientific proof that God does or does not exist. There is no logical deduction to prove it one way or the other, as any such deduction subjects the concept of God (who, by definition, is far, far greater than you) to your logic. That's why it's called faith.

In short, anybody who says that they have a concrete way to prove something about God is wacko. At some point there is a fundamental assumption being made. Believe what you will, just don't try to force me to believe it using logic or something else. (Yes, this is a different view on the religion thing than I've taken in the past, but I think that this may well be here to stay. Also, don't bother pointing out the irony that this falls under the whole "everything has a fundamental assumption of your logic being right." Don't bother pointing that out to me to try to prove to me that I am wrong. And yes, I realize that you will most likely maintain your differing view. I don't care. This post is to make clear what I think on the subject and why I find Occam's Razor to be crap, as you seem to have missed my point before.)

Edit: Oh, and in response to your electron thing: Electron microscope

You're overlooking my point. We hypothesize that light exists in tiny packets called photons. Lets say you have a sealed can, and when you shake it you hear what sounds like a metallic object rattling around. You hypothesize that there is some metallic object inside. After opening it, you find that it is actually an elaborate set of electric hammers that perfectly mimic the sounds of a metallic object rattling inside the can. Well, hell, your metallic object theory was good enough to make predictions about what kinds of sounds it makes, so it was a good enough theory.



Two words: Pascal's Wager. That's your argument here, and it's filled with more holes than a Prohibition mob informant.



That is precisely why we base how we live our everyday lives and what decisions we make not on what could be, but on what we observe. Did you know, for example, that there is a dragon behind you, right now? Don't bother to look, he's invisible, completely silent, and he allows matter and energy to pass through him at will; entirely undetectable by any means(in fact, this undetectability only proves his power over the universe). He follows you everywhere you go, judging you. If you don't do what the dragon wants, he might roast you with his flames and gobble you up, except that he's never done this even though you've done many, many, many things of which he doesn't approve. Still, he may change his mind at any moment and roast you. Is it not then foolish to act as if he doesn't exist?



First of all, acknowledging that your position is hypocritical, but then saying that you don't care anyway doesn't do anything positive. At all. It does not somehow validate your point; if anything, it shows that you don't even think your own argument holds
much water. Believing something that goes against your arguments isn't noble, it's just silly.

Second, you still hold the "nothing you ever say or show me will convince me I'm wrong, ever" position, which is remarkably close-minded. Before you try and pin the same title on me, remember that, as I've said before, I'm more than willing to admit that I'm wrong, when I actually see plausible evidence against me. No, arguments that you not only throw out on their own and never bother defend, but have been shown time and time again to be patently false will not suffice. Integrity and skepticism are not the same thing as close-mindedness.



I don't remember disputing electrons, I remember likening the relationship between the sensation of electricity and electrons with the sensation of light and photons. Again, light is an observable thing, photons are one hypothesis as to of what light is composed. Likewise, there are forces in the universe that can't be attributed to any directly observable source. Dark matter and energy are a hypothetical filler explanation for what causes them.

Thank you for missing me saying that I'm not providing an argument, but stating my viewpoint in a way that I hoped wouldn't be torn apart. Which I flat out stated. Though, knowing the fact that you never actually leave an opinion alone, that was stupid, in retrospect. So go ahead and respond to this post calling me a cop-out or something like that, because I don't care and do not plan to post in this thread anymore. If having the last word on my opinion of any logical breakdown of that which is spiritual being idiotic means so much to you, then be my guest.



As for this, it is because from my perspective, the exact same can be said about you. The only difference is that I actually admit the fact that we both find our positions to be solid, and the other's to be crap and fallacious, and that for that reason that I will never convince you that I am right, and you will never convince me that you are right. And, ironically, you'll probably dispute this, too, as being baseless. But hey, I'm going for broke. As I don't plan to post in this thread again, I may as well leave you with fun things to tear apart to feel superior while I sit over there somewhere calling us both idiots for actually bringing this up for the upteen millionth time. I don't know about you, but I would think that I, at least, would have learned by now how futile it is to even argue the futility of arguing over religion.

Enjoy.

Edit: Oh, I forgot something you might enjoy playing with and not leaving alone: The irony thing about my "argument", as you call it, being able to be used to say that it does not hold was me saying what you would say, preemptively. That sort of argument really is closer to saying that human logic is flawed, and we must accept that what we logically deduce may not always be correct due to that. I mean, an argument always has assumptions, an implicit one being that the logic used in the argument is sound.

Okay, there you go, at least three things in this post that you'll not like. Enjoy yourself.

The difference between my analysis of your position and your analysis of mine is that I provide counter-examples and reasoning to show the errors in your position, while your analysis boils down to: "You're wrong." "Care to elaborate?" "Nope." Nevermind the fact that you entirely ignored the actual argument, and merely decided to adress the afterward.

And knowing what I'm going to say because you're using the same arguments that I've refuted time and time again isn't "ironic."

"... I'm more than willing to admit that I'm wrong, when I actually see plausible evidence against me."

No you're not, because you believe there is no plausible evidence against you.

Secondly, both your concept and the very use of the word "plausible" display your entirely too narrow approach to life. You want to know only that which can be proved in a certain way (science). Philosophy has taught us that we shouldn't even trust our senses absolutely - there is always doubt and never certainty. But science is the best we can do right? Well if human knowledge itself is a flawed method, what difference does it make what kind of flaw we're talking about? If there's always a margin of error with science (the likelihood that science is wrong), is the margin of error of religious knowledge really that much considerably wider? By science's standards yes, but you don't measure one standard's reliability by another's - that's why they're separate. Have you ever really explored any other ways of thinking on their own terms? Isn't the truth an important enough goal to find to branch out a bit?

My only goal here is to try to get you to understand the merit of pluralism, of using a variety of methods, of not slavishly following one method just because it offers the most reliable answers (by its own standards). But please don't repeat the old argument that you and I are both tired of: blind faith is not knowledge. Yes, I know, but I'm not talking about blind faith. Spirituality is not blind faith. Yes, the vast majority of religious people practice blind faith, but you don't learn from elementary students to become a great violinist. Go to the the masters: learn about religions of the world and their methods, look up Taoism and Kabbalism and other mystical traditions (the best sources for real religious knowledge, in my biased opinion). In short, I ask you only to "widen your gaze," as Lord Blackwood once advised Robert Downey Jr. so memorably.

I do not "believe" there is no plausible evidence against me, I have simply yet to see it. That is not the same thing. I also, for example, have yet to see any evidence for a cure for cancer, doesn't mean I refuse to admit cancer can ever been cured.



It is indeed impossible to find truth, but that does not mean all attempts at approximating truth are equally flawed. Scientific thinking (in pure form) is systematic and consistent. It's core assumption is that the rules of the universe are constant.If this assumption is discarded, no attempt at truth can reasonably be made. If the laws of the universe can be changed at any instant, then any data you collect or theory you formulate is of any use whatsoever.

And I'm not entirely certain what "religious knowledge" is supposed to be, and what separates it from "scientific knowledge". Perhaps you can enlighten me.



You also don't go to masters in music theory and songwriting to learn how to play the violin. My whole position here is that I don't care what is or isn't "true", but rather what is a useful approximation of reality. I don't refute the possibility of supernatural things, I simply don't see any evidence that there are any. We can come up with countless ideas of things that could exist yet have no observable effect on the universe whatsoever, but there's no reason to believe them if they not only have no practical repercussions, but have no notable evidence in their favor.



Keep in mind that Holmes didn't solve the case by using mysticism, he solved it by predicting social actions using geometric symbols that those social groups found important.

". . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science."
In summary, if all the evidence in the world pointed towards evolution, he would still not accept it.

The above words were said by Kurt Wise, an American geologist. A geologist! The fact that there are honest creationists, I find disturbing and frightening.

In the atheist worldview, the existence of "plausible" evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural is impossible. A pretty biased start to analyzing religion.



All I'm saying is that you can't judge a system of knowledge based on another system's standards. And as to religious knowledge, there's a chapter in the book Godel Escher Bach called Mumon and Godel I believe, which discusses the Unmode and the correlation between infinite loops and Zen philosophy. This is where I get most of my conception of religious knowledge.



After that first sentence, I shouldn't think I'd need to continue, but oh well. Of what use is practicality? What does it give us? Survival, yes. Technological progress, yes. Material goods, yes. The last two I won't argue about as to their value or lack thereof. But surely you don't advocate that there's nothing more to aspire to than survival? What do you think gives life value? Have you ever had a moment of paralysis where you didn't have the slightest idea as to what your mind was doing in this body on this earth? Have you ever thought about what you'll do when it happens? Is it just a weakness of humanity to have these moments of desperation? Is the whole impulse to know about our world and our lives a weakness? Then what does that make science?

And Pi(e), this Kurt Wise is clearly an idiot and a fundamentalist. And there is nothing more hindering to understanding science or religion than idiocy and fundamentalism. He is only unique in that he doesn't try to conceal the fundamentalist thought-process.

The atheist worldview is that there is currently no available evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural; it never says that such evidence is impossible, just not currently available.



I'm not judging your system by sciences standards, but by it's usefulness. It just happens that science is tailored to collect useful information.



When I say "practical", I mean in the sense of gaining usable information. Again, there are countless ideas that have no real-world implications that can never be proven true or false, and are thus useless. It doesn't matter what is or isn't true, per se, because we can never objectively and absolutely see or understand reality. The closest we have is that which can be repeatedly observed; even philosophy is scientifically scrutinized for logic and consistency. Disregarding scientific thinking altogether leaves a system that has no consistent implications, and as such has no real use beyond fruitless conjecture.

I have trouble understanding when people separate the terms 'supernatural' and 'science.' Currently, the concept of 'gravity' is simply a theory. We don't actually know what this magical force is. But still, despite our lack of understanding of something so fundamental to our universe, we regard this thing called gravity as science. In all due respects, gravity is a supernatural occurrence. Ten thousand years ago, people had no understanding of any Newtonian physics. They relied on religious elements to explain these supernatural events.

So isn't God simply a means of explanation. As far as I can tell, holding that there is a God is just as arguable as saying the universe is controlled by tiny vibrating strings on 11 planck length, curled up dimensions. Neither are observable. Both take in so many assumptions in reasoning/mathematical calculations that it is meaningless.

I agree with Celtica in that it all comes down to your philosophical views of the universe. My approach to science and philosophy has been to compromise them both. Who says God can't govern a universe in an orderly, mathematically-provable way? Who says something isn't possible unless there's evidence? Much of the scientific advances (at least in physics) have come by accident. Scientists do not set out on quests to prove, but to solve. It doesn't matter how they reach a solution, as long as they do. Light equations only worked when solved as small packets (photons). Perhaps they really aren't photons, but tiny clanking hammers that mimic the affects of photons, but it is all the same. They make the equations work, whatever they are; we don't necessarily have to prove photons. On many occasions, scientific discoveries have proved disappointing, simply because they have been solved empirically, with no real understanding of their inner workings.

Think of the solved equation as your explanation, and the correction factor as the supernatural. All your 'known' variables can be scientific evidences/proofs. Both scientific and religious views will define this correction factor to solve the equations and explain the event. However, there is a difference in their approaches. Science is unexplained, while philosophy is explained. What I mean by this is... let me give an example...

Astral Projection. Remote Viewing. Whatever you want to call it. A lot of people will think its bogus. Religious and scientific peoples might think its bogus. Taking a scientific approach to the situation, we would say, "Astral projection cannot be described by the laws of physics, therefore, at least until there is proof of it, I am ignorant that it is a phenomena." Philosophical approaching peoples will say, "Hmmm, well, I don't see any evidence against it. It might be bogus, but there is still some intriguing ideas surrounding projection. I might as well go along with it and see if it works out."

Astral projection as a phenomena was probably a bad example. There are thousands of people around the world that regularly experience astral projection. I should have clarified it as the phenomenon's portrayal of the physical world. Anyways, philosophical approaches can be much more productive in that instead of waiting for proof, they will go along with it until there is no more need to. Instead of simply refuting argument after argument, we could take on the approach that "new ideas do not necessarily have to replace previous ones but can extend the possibilities of what we know, regardless of whether they are correct." (quoting from a paper I wrote a while back)

I apologize if I appeared as if I was taking on the voice of argument. I hope I have simply described the differences between scientific and religious views and how each may be used for their distinct purposes. I was in no way intending to prove to someone that there is/isn't a God; that is a decision that should be reserved to each person respectively.

Why does fulfilling human curiosity and desire for meaning not count as useful? Is it useful to know that we can't know for sure whether other minds exist? Not many practical applications to be drawn from Sartre. Is it useful to have an eargasm while listening to Vicarious? Not much pragmatism in Tool, either. Does this mean that Sartre and Tool are without value? No. Pure knowledge that has no practical application does have value. The fundamental question of this issue that I would put to you is this: what value does practicality have?

Pure knowledge does have value, but religion is not pure knowledge. Religion is speculation of events with no reliable supporting evidence. Again, science's only significant assumption is that the universe is consistent. If this is true, science is the best measure of what is real. If it is false, then there is no way to ever know anything about the universe. Religions lack of real value comes from the fact that the existing religious "hypotheses", if you chose to call them that, are no different in any way from the infinite number of equally complex, equally supported arbitrary claims that exist both stated and unimagined. That is, for every Abrahamic omnipotent sky-dwelling creator you can think up and believe in whole-heartedly, there are an infinite number of colors of invisible unicorn, an infinite number of styles of flying pasta monster, and an infinite number of claims so bizarre that I can't even begin to imagine them, that you would easily laugh off as fantasy, despite the fact that they are all equally as likely as your particular belief.

Even claims of feeling some presence, or any other divine intervention are useless. What separates an act of God from a trick of Satan? How do you know that the "miracles" people have witnessed aren't just tricks by a less powerful, evil being set on converting as many people possible from the righteous, free-thinking path of the designer of our brains to the clouded, dogmatic path of religion? You can claim that it's a convoluted or ridiculous statement, but it has just as much likelihood of your belief.

1) Have you read that chapter of Godel Escher Bach that I mentioned? It would help you out a lot with the misconceptions of religion that you're basing your arguments on. I stated before that religion (as explained in the chapter) does not contradict science's assumption that the universe is consistent. You're arguing with me, you should be arguing against my conception of religion, not the generic one.

2) You're using "supporting evidence" in a scientific context, and thus judging religious knowledge by scientific standards, which is baaaaaaad.