I don't see how God could plausibly exist (Christian definition of God)

[Ginkgo]

That only means we've got to make up better laws. It means we don't understand everything of the universe - which is quite normal, actually, because we're just a tiny part of it. We're chess pieces trying to understand the game. It doesn't mean there is a conscious being purposely doing things which are impossible according to our laws of physics.
The most awesome and craziest thing is that there are such laws. We can almost with 100% certainty assume that mass will attract each other according to the law of gravity. We even relied with our lives on that law when we sent a rocket to the moon - and it didn't fail us!
Miracles? No... just an incomplete understanding. Which does NOT take out the wonder from our universe. After all, a rainbow is still beautiful even if you know how it's made.

Hey Tam, I'll try to respond in the morning. I'm pretty drowsy.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Of course. You can not "prove" that something doesn't exist.
You try to prove there is no little teapot on orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Especially if the teapot is invisible.

I don't think this analogy is apt, because no one really cares if there is a teapot between Mars and Jupiter. However almost everyone cares about whether or not God exists. The question "Does God really exist" is more like the question, "Does love really exist". I can tell you it does, but I can't really prove it. All I can say is if you sincerely look for it then you will find it eventually.

 

[Mole]

Sincerity or Science?

...if you sincerely look for it then you will find it eventually.

No one doubts your sincerity. But we are all prone to illusion. And one of our most common illusions, to the extent it has become a truism, is, "if you look for something, you will find it".

The scientific method is designed to avoid illusions, and in particular the illusion of finding what we look for.

And the scientific method is also designed to avoid group illusions, or what is commonly called group think.

Unfortunately those with sincere illusions seek validation in a group, so we then have the double illusion of the group illusion validating the sincere individual illusion.

And we are fortunate to be able to directly see this double illusion operating in front of us every day on MBTI.

But none of us can help but be touched by its sincerity.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

The scientific method is designed to avoid illusions, and in particular the illusion of finding what we look for.

And the scientific method is also designed to avoid group illusions, or what is commonly called group think.

Let me spell my point out a little more clearly. The question "Does God exist" cannot be answered objectively. That is why the scientific method won't work in this case. I say it's like "Does love exist", because regardless of how you answer the question you're going to have a personal stake in it. There can't be any objectivity and that is why using the scientific method in this case is useless. Some questions are inherently personal.

 

[Mole]

Loosing our heads over illusions.

Let me spell my point out a little more clearly. The question "Does God exist" cannot be answered objectively. That is why the scientific method won't work in this case. I say it's like "Does love exist", because regardless of how you answer the question you're going to have a personal stake in it. There can't be any objectivity and that is why using the scientific method in this case is useless. Some questions are inherently personal.

The scientific method can show an illusion. For instance, the scientific method can show that the Sun goes round the Earth is an illusion.

In fact we might say that the scientific method has been replacing illusion with fact. But we are inclined to hang on to our personal illusions and our group illusions like grim death.

And if you criticize the illusions of 1.1 billion of us, you have a reasonable chance of having your head cut off.

So some of us loose our heads over our personal illusions and our group illusions, while some of us simply have our heads cut off.

So it's heads you win and tails we loose.

 

[Nicodemus]

I have found endless comfort and (much NEEDED) humility in my belief that something greater than myself exists.

Regardless of whether it exists or not, I am grateful that my belief in a higher power has allowed me to be a better person.

You could just as well have walked into a hurricane.

 

[Lark]

It takes a lot of work to overturn belief in God and also the plausibility of that belief, its only generally the grown up who will find it immanently implausible to entertain such beliefs and I think as a consequence its often mistaken for a mark of maturity to disbelief.

 

[Oberon]

I wonder which is the more poignant... the desperate emotional need deep down in the soul that there be a God, or the desperate emotional need deep down in the soul that there be no such thing?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

^ perspicacity in action.

 

[BlueGray]

I don't think this analogy is apt, because no one really cares if there is a teapot between Mars and Jupiter. However almost everyone cares about whether or not God exists. The question "Does God really exist" is more like the question, "Does love really exist". I can tell you it does, but I can't really prove it. All I can say is if you sincerely look for it then you will find it eventually.

If you give a definition of love it can be proven by showing such definition occurs. It's a failure to reach consensus on love, not the difficulty of actually proving it, that stops you from proving it. Love as defined by chemical reactions has been observed. What definition would one give for God? Any definition that is not testable in some manner would mean God has no impact on us. I would disagree that I care about whether there is some God doing absolutely nothing to alter me or anything I can observe. Such a God has less importance to me than the existence of a teapot orbiting in space as there is a way to test for that teapot given infinite resources.

 

[BlueGray]

It takes a lot of work to overturn belief in God and also the plausibility of that belief, its only generally the grown up who will find it immanently implausible to entertain such beliefs and I think as a consequence its often mistaken for a mark of maturity to disbelief.

This appears to say that humans are born with belief in God. If people are not born with this belief than there is no need to overturn this belief. It simply never existed the same way the infant never believed that it was dead.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

If you give a definition of love it can be proven by showing such definition occurs. It's a failure to reach consensus on love, not the difficulty of actually proving it, that stops you from proving it. Love as defined by chemical reactions has been observed.

You are close. It's more correct to say that one cannot prove love, because everyone has a personal stake in it. Everyone has there own subjective idea of what love should be. Therefore people draw there conclusions about love not from objective evidence, but rather from their own subjective opinion. I could say love exists and someone else could say it doesn't and we would never come to a resolution even though we use the same definition. We might agree that it is dumb to define love in terms of chemical reactions, but then still not agree about whether or not love exists.

What definition would one give for God? Any definition that is not testable in some manner would mean God has no impact on us.

What if we define God as "the thing that caused the Big Bang"? Since the Big Bang must have a cause, then God is proved. There that was easy.

I would disagree that I care about whether there is some God doing absolutely nothing to alter me or anything I can observe. Such a God has less importance to me than the existence of a teapot orbiting in space as there is a way to test for that teapot given infinite resources.

If this is true you are quite unusual. Just looking at this forum I see tons of threads discussing God and not one discussing a teapot between Mars and Jupiter.

 

[BlueScreen]

What definition would one give for God? Any definition that is not testable in some manner would mean God has no impact on us.

How do we measure the influence of something that has choice rather than follows consistent laws? Especially if it also has awareness of the other laws present. That was what I was pointing out a few pages ago. Anything that is below the noise threshold is undetectable. So much can happen that will never be measured, whether it is because it is done when no one is measuring, or because it is part of what we see as randomness.

If I gave you us as a game and said you have all knowledge of the universe and our thoughts, now play with us without us noticing, you'd probably do okay. When I came to test for you, you'd just laugh and do what I expected to see for no God.

 

[BlueGray]

How do we measure the influence of something that has choice rather than follows consistent laws? Especially if it also has awareness of the other laws present. That was what I was pointing out a few pages ago. Anything that is below the noise threshold is undetectable. So much can happen that will never be measured, whether it is because it is done when no one is measuring, or because it is part of what we see as randomness.

If I gave you us as a game and said you have all knowledge of the universe and our thoughts, now play with us without us noticing, you'd probably do okay. When I came to test for you, you'd just laugh and do what I expected to see for no God.

So god is not enacting any noticeable change? Why then would the people care about God? That is precisely the situation where God's existence has become meaningless. Were he to suddenly stop doing next to nothing there would now be a reason to care and also a way to prove his existence. This is similar to Occam's Razor. If the world doesn't change as a result of God's existence then God's existence can be ignored. There is no need to know whether there might be some great deception going on when that deception does nothing.

If God is enacting change and we simply don't notice it than I challenge people to pay closer attention and find these changes. God is thus provable and people can not use the argument that it is not.

 

[BlueGray]

You are close. It's more correct to say that one cannot prove love, because everyone has a personal stake in it. Everyone has there own subjective idea of what love should be. Therefore people draw there conclusions about love not from objective evidence, but rather from their own subjective opinion. I could say love exists and someone else could say it doesn't and we would never come to a resolution even though we use the same definition. We might agree that it is dumb to define love in terms of chemical reactions, but then still not agree about whether or not love exists.

It is possible to use subjective experiences to create a definition. With love most people simply fail to agree to any definition. I could define love as I enjoy spending time with someone, or I am happier when with them.

What if we define God as "the thing that caused the Big Bang"? Since the Big Bang must have a cause, then God is proved. There that was easy.

That can work as a definition for God. The problems come in when people make further assumptions on that and treat these assumptions as fact. Proving a definition is simple, it is making use of that definition accurately that is more difficult.

If this is true you are quite unusual. Just looking at this forum I see tons of threads discussing God and not one discussing a teapot between Mars and Jupiter.

People are discussing the possibility of a God that impacts their world. People in such threads aren't discussing about their personal God that does nothing but watches them and rejoices in their success. They are trying to talk about some universal God that changes the world. It is by applying that their idea of God changes the world that they give attention and meaning to it.

 

[BlueScreen]

So god is not enacting any noticeable change? Why then would the people care about God? That is precisely the situation where God's existence has become meaningless. Were he to suddenly stop doing next to nothing there would now be a reason to care and also a way to prove his existence. This is similar to Occam's Razor. If the world doesn't change as a result of God's existence then God's existence can be ignored. There is no need to know whether there might be some great deception going on when that deception does nothing.

If God is enacting change and we simply don't notice it than I challenge people to pay closer attention and find these changes. God is thus provable and people can not use the argument that it is not.

That still didn't cover the assumptions contained in your other post. Noticeable and attributable are worlds apart.

p.s. I'm an atheist.

 

[Lark]

This appears to say that humans are born with belief in God. If people are not born with this belief than there is no need to overturn this belief. It simply never existed the same way the infant never believed that it was dead.

I dont believe Memetic theory can explain God, it can explain Atheism though.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

^ I have experienced God in a way that forced me to concede his/her existence.

God and the experiences one gets from such an entity, are not of a nature that they can be aptly described.

And even if they could, it would never be enough to convince you because your belief (in my most humble of opinions) extends only as far as your presumed greatness.

You can talk theories all you want but don't knock it till you've tried it.

Athiesm has a hubris to it that has always ran a chill down my spine.

 

[Nicodemus]

^ I have experienced God in a way that forced me to concede his/her existence.

I bet a million lives that you merely labeled your experience 'god'; for it did not divulge its godness clearly to you (thus it cannot be 'aptly described'), so that through a lack of other explanations you reached for the easiest one: god, religion, tradition.

 

[Ginkgo]

I bet a million lives...

From you, that doesn't mean much.