Definition of God - one thread to rule them all

Duplicate

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not exactly a definitive of god but a definition of STUDY of god

godgapology - the attempt to study a god which is beyond the limits of

• human technology and
• human view and
• human knowledge

but is said to exist

As far as I know no godgapolist has ever published any paper detailing their findings

Those writings, which in retrospect could be works of godgapolist must be considered works of fiction considering the definition of godgapology contains

a god which is beyond the limits of

• human technology and
• human view and
• human knowledge

but is said to exist

This gives godgapolist perfect non-working environments

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's godism for you.
I think we need a thread on elves.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All available science does conclude that tracing the metric expansion of the universe back in time does indicate a single origin of its space and time a finite time in the past. Any other theories are fringe. And placeholders of dark energy/matter are just names for things we don't understand and can't explain, like life, the soul, etc.. You might not believe that some placeholders have observable phenomena, but that's because you erroneously and unjustifiably attribute some observations to better understood things, so you feel like you have some kind of handle on them.

 

I think we can get back to a hot dense state with the available science . .. that does not take us to " nothing" and an environment to suggest a creation point unless you wish to speculate.

Do you have any in mind?

Mmm the soul does not have anything similar to the observations that suggest dark energy or dark matter.
I could be persuaded to think otherwise but as I see it the concept of a soul is entirely made up purely to fit with the wishful thinking of godism.
Do you have anything in the least way pursuading?

Well to a large degree each of us interpret observable phenomena in such a way that it will somehow hook up with our core beliefs and perhaps that is why you think I that I think the way you think I think...what do you think about that?
Would you not agree each human believes they have a handle on whatever they discuss?
Alex

 

Who said anything about "nothing". That's just a straw man.
The general consensus in science is that the Big Bang occurred a finite time in the past. That the universe's state was not only dense but infinity so, due to zero space. And without space, there can be no appreciable time, as spacetime is a manifold. An infinite density with zero space and time is exactly what seems to have some origin we cannot account for.

You're the one who brought it up:

You tell me.

Sure it does. There's a ton of human behavior and qualitative experience we cannot account for by physiology alone. Your preferred placeholder "science will eventually fill those gaps" is just so much more long winded than "soul". Your science-of-the-gaps is entirely made up purely to fit with the wishful thinking of scientism.

No, and neither do you. Just because science is successful in handling tractable problems tells us nothing about problems we have yet to find the least bit amenable to its methods. At least, without blind faith in science.

I believe it is more intellectually honest to use a placeholder that I freely admit I do not understand, rather than using one that you merely pretend that we have any understanding of at all. Be honest with yourself. Is it more beholden to personal belief to admit you don't know or pretend you do?

 

Two points to correct you on, the BB is a description of the evolution of the universe from a hot, dense state at t+10-43 seconds. We can only speculate before that. And of course the BB only applies to the observable universe.

Science knows and accepts where its limitations of knowledge and data, and where they are. They don't need some fanatical IDer or creationist telling them and then ignorantly substituting their god of the gaps.

Waxing lyrical as much as you like, the facts are that we have absolutely no evidence for any soul at all and more importantly, no need.

Faith in science is based on evidence and the observational data showing it to be in continual progress. That's far different from faith in some sky daddy, based on ancient myths and the fear of the finality of death.

Any place holders installed by science exactly depicts a limited understanding...DE..dark? It's called that for a reason....DM the same. Far more honest then bowing, scraping and adoring some mythical nonsense for fear of the inevitability of death.
Finding an honest creationist and/or IDer, at least on a science forum, is a 100 to 1 chance. Obviously they come here with an agenda and fanatical desire to crusade for their overlords.

 

I go mostly with "I don't know" and this is opposite to what I observe with godism.

However looking at the concept of soul I think it is reasonable to conclude the idea is entirely made up so I can't see a case for even making a comment to be honest..unless to pull someone up making such an unsupported claim to remind them they need to offer more than just an unevidenced belielf. Those claiming there is a soul can't reasonably expect me to say...well I don't know..that gives the myth weight it has not earnt...anyways thank you for your observations but really you do need to put your faith in science for the answers to questions it is asked rather than rely on answers to questions that really need not be asked.
The problem with religion it has no foundation.. you can trace it's development which shows that it is made and unfortunately we can't just rush past that aspect to conclude there is something real that has come out of the made up stuff.
You mention that admitting one does not know is a good option ...so let me ask...Is there a god?
Alex

 

You're correcting your own straw men. No one claimed that we had knowledge all the way to the point of the Big Bang singularity, nor that the BB accounted for anything beyond the observable. So, who are you arguing with? The voices in your head?

Science certainly does know its own limits.

You don't know that. It's only your blind faith in science that could lead you to make such claims, hypocritically themselves without evidence.

No, faith is faith. It exists explicitly in a dearth of evidence, even just simply by definition. It's a serious lack of intellectual rigor to presume that knowing, say, objects fall toward a gravity well somehow means you can have any surety in what causes the completely incomprehensible. And just because you refuse to accept any but scientific evidence does not make experiential evidence any less compelling to those who experience it. One has to wonder why the fanciful, according to you, beliefs of others cause you so much consternation. Do they threaten your own faith?

Sure, a limited understanding, but framed in science, e.g. "energy" and "matter", denoting that faith in scientism as a ward against the unknown. And in my experience, it's a straw man that any believers do so out of a fear of death. Again, what harm do the belief's of others do to you? You sound like you are personally threatened by them.

Your outside observations are often just straw men. You're free to believe them, if you really want to.

Many very similar religious ideas developed independently of each other across a wide variety of cultures. Belief in free will has a scientifically measured positive correlation with honest behavior. The only experiment purported to show the brain causes our perceived choices was debunked for flawed methodology. So if there's any actual evidence for a materialist explanation of these things, where's their evidence?

Saying you simply refuse to ask questions science is not equipped to answer is like only believing what the most literal interpretation of the Bible says. It's hiding your head in the sand when anything threatens your existing beliefs. Your prerogative though.

 

Actually the imagined divine voices in your head.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Unlike the nonsense and myth preached by IDers and creationists.

No, that is actual fact. We have absolutely no evidence for any soul or similar mythical nonsense.

No, there is a big difference despite your back-to-the-wall denial. I have faith that the Sun will rise every morning. That is far different from your faith and belief in some unscientific supernatural being, that promises heaven and/or hell when you cark it.
Oh, and certainly no consternation on my part. Just correcting your errors and mystical, mythical beliefs, based on nothing more then maintaining your warm fuzzy feeling inside, and of course to please your overlords.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not in the least threatened.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't need to barge into a church informing the gullible congregation of their mistaken beliefs, as you feel threatened enough to barge into a science forum, attempting your evangelisitic crusade against the evils of science.

But we all know its your existing beliefs that are threatened more and more everyday, and making any need of any sky daddy more and more superfluous. That's why you come here, on your white charger, frothing and foaming and preaching against that which without you wouldn't be here.

 

Wow, you got delusions of voices in other people's heads? That's some next level nuts.

Hey, you're the one who's so adamant about it being God-of-the-gaps. At the very least, that would certainly seem to indicate knowing its limits. And that's from the most fundamental, which is more than can be said of those who believe in scientism.

No, again, that's just your blind faith refusal to countenance anything that isn't expressly scientific.

No, you have actual evidence that the sun will rise every morning, and your faith misleads you into conflating that evidence as supporting unrelated things we have zero evidence for.
I have personal experience, shared by ~80 of the entire world and failures of misguided scientific attempts to show otherwise or provide evidenced alternatives.
But I guess you thinking you hear voices in other people's heads explains all your concern about their beliefs. A simple fact you may not realize...you can't correct personal experience. That's a reality closer to the individual than anything external (unless there's ever any actual contradictory evidence). And there may be something a bit unhinged in believing you can.

I'm posting in a religion subforum. One you don't have to frequent, if it bothers you so. And as I've said, I understand science, enough that others here bear correction.
And there's something odd about you repeatedly whining about me preaching or evangelizing when I repeatedly tell you that I have zero reason that you should believe what I do.
I don't know, maybe that stirs up more cognitive dissonance.
I like science. I also prefer to see it not misapplied.

Unlike you, who likely only has your beliefs challenged by pretty weak sauce, like Jan, I see beliefs that counter my own daily, in popular media, music, movies, etc..

 

Playing dumb?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You seem slightly confused. God of the gaps is your baby. Science is working on the gaps.

No you lie. There is no evidence for any beast you like to call a soul....that is fact.

Sure, my faith in science is based on the evidence for science. You been drinking? On drugs?

 

Regardless of whatever straw man you imagine, God doesn't speak to me. So yes, any such voices would only be your own delusion.

Belief in science-of-the-gaps is your dogma. I believe that science will discover more, but that the methodology of science defines certain limits that will always be insurmountable.

Can't be a lie when you just confirmed exactly what I said. You refuse to accept anything that isn't scientific.

Science is not a thing, like a chair, that you can have faith will support your weight. It is a methodology that can only be applied to problems that can be sufficiently predicted. That's what a hypothesis entails. Claiming the methodology that shows a chair will support your weight must mean, without direct evidence, that a TV tray will do so as well, is nothing more than blind faith. A methodology doesn't do that without actually evidence to apply it to, on a case by case basis.

I don't mind the heat. Like I said earlier, I'm subjected to contrary views every day, whether I frequent a science forum or not. I post here because I like science. And if you haven't seen me correct someone on science, you haven't looked.

Most sane humans need significant reasons to disbelieve what they have personally experienced for themselves. FYI, I don't believe in a bearded guy on a throne in the clouds either. You're just a fount of straw men.

Hey, if your beliefs get challenged, by all means, correct my assumption. I admit it's based on nothing but the fact that the typical atheist science forum poster generally shares more with mainstream media and culture and their fellow posters than most theists. If you think my beliefs don't, that's on you.

 

Thank you for your kindness in extending me that licence I feel so much better ...if what you believed in could be shown to have the tangibility of straw I could be happy for you.
Alex

 

I don't have delusions. And I question the denial of your's re your own voices.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Science of the gaps? Sure! That's what we all want, and of course what you believe is neither here nor there. Again, you seem rather confused...and desperate as well.

Sure! again you are correct, so we are making progress, or as I said before, just confusion, sprinkled with desperation on your part? Science afterall is the all encompassing discipline, that describes the nature, structure, of the universe we live in and all that is in it. We do that via the scientific methodology and observational and experimental data...you know, the stuff that you chose to periodically deny, when it conflicts with your sky daddy or creation. Not very honest and much like Jan.

Teaching Granny how to suck eggs again? or more confusion, Jan style.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most preachers revel in the heat also...It is related to what we call the "martyr syndrome".
Like I said, I havn't seen you correct anyone, other then with your own preferred version of myth.

Well tell us my good man, what do you believe in? A guy sitting on a throne with no beard? Again, highlighting my previous error re complimenting you on honesty, it seems as desperation sets in, so to does confusion, and a hidden agenda and the true nature of your beliefs. Jan had that habit also.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My beliefs are not challenged. I accept mainstream science views in general because they are the most overwhelmingly evidenced. Where contrary views exist, I'm generally knowledgable enough to sit back, not make any preaching noise, and wait until further observational and/or experimental data, sheds more light on the problem. Let me reiterate, Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer available....science, you know, that all encompassing discipline that best describes the universe we live in and everything else....

 

Maybe projection then. Don't know how else to account for it.
You got nothing about a theist who God doesn't speak to, huh?

Your assessment sounds as reliable as the voices you imagine in other people's heads. Good luck with that!

Yep, I gave you far too much credit. Too bad. Again, what actual evidence have I denied? Show me. Shove it right in my face. If you can.
The dishonesty here is you repeated things like "skydaddy" when I've told you I don't believe in anything even vaguely fitting that description. Straw men never hit the intended target. But then the desperation and dishonesty is just projection. It's funny how often you people telegraph exactly what you're feeling and doing.

Wow, the lack of any actual rebuttal is deafening. I had a feeling a couple of my comments about Jan would make that a tempting target for ad hominems. You didn't let me down.

No martyr. Like I said, I couldn't care less if anyone goes to hell. That's your business, not for me to judge.
No doubt you'd just try to justify their ignorance despite me, so I'm okay with you think what you will. You'll know you never bothered to look.

The only things you seem to know about my beliefs is what your mistakenly assumed, all on your own. That's on you, mate.
I believe in syncretic panentheism. Look em up. See if you can shoehorn any of your straw men in there.

So you think I lied about my beliefs being challenged? Even though you admit yours are mainstream and we clearly disagree?
You seem a lot more interested in convincing me than I am of convincing you. From my perspective, you're the preachy one.
Science doesn't encompass philosophy, metaphysics, subjective experience, and maybe only tangentially human behavior. It has no handle on the hard problem of consciousness, nor what things really are and how we can go about truly knowing them. The basis of philosophy of science, that girds science itself, is beyond its own methodology.

Just because it's the only scientific answer available doesn't make it true. That belief is the dogma of scientism.

 

Right.

Suppose that there's a sudden bright flash if light, followed a few seconds later by a loud concussion. Applying something like Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason, we can assume that the observed detonation happened for some reason, even if we don't currently know what it is. We assume that there's some explanation for what happened. So investigators would go searching for whatever it was. Maybe explosive residues, maybe evidence of a meteorite impact, or whatever it turns out to be.

We ask a 'why' question, we assume that the question has an answer, then we try to determine what the answer was. It's a fundamental motivator for scientific inquiry.

Leibniz writes in the Monadology,

31. Our reasonings are based on two great principles, that of contradiction, in virtue of which we judge that which involves a contradiction to be false...

32. And that of sufficient reason, by virtue of which we consider that we can find no true or existent fact, no true assertion, without there being a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise, although most of the time these reasons cannot be known to us.

If we assume as premises that

1. existence exists, or that the reality of the physical universe as a whole is an existent fact

If we define

2. 'God' is whatever explains the existence and fundamental nature of observed reality as a whole.

And introduce the secret sauce

3. whatever exists possesses an explanation (the principle of sufficient reason)

We would seem to have the makings of a logical proof of the existence of God.

 

Funny you should pick Leibniz, as his philosophy, metaphysics, and theodicy illustrate the fact that many things we have functional or descriptive definitions of are abstract in nature or otherwise completely beyond the methodology of science. Neglecting that such things exist, even just in thought, is the only thing that allows your materialist analogy, and by extension science, to seem so encompassing. We ask "why" well beyond things amenable to science. And perhaps surprisingly for some, we still assume the question has an answer. That motive surpasses just science. Because just like science was initially developed by people who believed God made the universe orderly enough for man to comprehend (instead of random or ruled by capricious gods or sprites), Leibniz believed reason could suffice where evidence was silent.

"Existence and fundamental nature" are already well-beyond the methodology of science. These are existential questions in the field of metaphysics.

But I wholeheartedly agree that everything that exists is within the grasp of man's comprehension, even if forever beyond the reach of materialist methodology. Logical proofs are not as compelling as physical evidence. So I'm not sure what's to be accomplished promoting one. Aside from the fact that your definition of God is, itself, not likely to be compelling. Now we could certainly improve upon that definition, but it's persuasiveness would always be in question by materialist dogmatism.

 

The only way I am able to account for your confusion is that you believe in silly myths.

It's your head, your voices you here, I never said anything about me hearing them...sounds again like Jan. oops is that another ad-hom?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

stuff up