• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Flaw in Assertion of God's Existence

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
Every single christian, protestant, catholic, or mormon, that I have talked to has brought this argument into play.

Forgive me if I disbelieve you. I don't think you're lying, I just think that you're overstating the case.

Also, I have heard a christian theologian use this argument on the radio.

Okay, well perhaps you could be good enough to supply an actual example, taken from the Internet, say? Suffice to say, though, that only the most misinformed Christian would make this argument, and it's nothing against Christianity to have such an argument debunked.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
God is not unapproachable by science not because he's "outside" the universe, but because science can only discern things it can measure. By definition, the "Christian God" is infinite. Last time I checked, science was unable to discern infinity's boundary in order to make a measurement.
 

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
Logically, there is no "outside" of the multiverse, as the multiverse is infinite in scope, and the outside is therefore undefined. Of course, I don't believe god exists, and certainly has never verifiably(everybody agrees) detected "inside" the multiverse.
 

Cacafire

Member
Forgive me if I disbelieve you. I don't think you're lying, I just think that you're overstating the case.
Perhaps. I meant to say every christian that I've gotten cornered in an argument. The argument is usually a last resort so to speak, and so dififcult to counter by the friends of mine that don't believe.
Okay, well perhaps you could be good enough to supply an actual example, taken from the Internet, say? Suffice to say, though, that only the most misinformed Christian would make this argument, and it's nothing against Christianity to have such an argument debunked.

First, might I ask, why is an argument that a theologion made on the radio not acceptable? In terms of what the religious believe, it is certainly more valid than the internet, which is filled with so much false claims that it's hard to judge what christians believe, never mind atheists. Too much propaganda.

However, let me say this. This particular argument could be brought forward by any person, well-informed, or desperate. If you, or your religion, claims that god is inside the universe, then obviously the flaw does not apply to you so you needn't worry. I would be interested in learning why you think, or eve IF you think, god can not be at least observed through science. But obviously, if you claim that god is inside the universe, then the above flaw does not apply.

The topic of this thread, however, is the flaws found in the argument that may or may not be advanced by anyone on this planet. If you find yourself wanting to advance the argument, you must remember this thread, as you will have to defend yourself against the observed flaws in the argument.

But if you don't? Well, it would certainly be interesting to hear what you do claim.
 

Cacafire

Member
God is not unapproachable by science not because he's "outside" the universe, but because science can only discern things it can measure. By definition, the "Christian God" is infinite. Last time I checked, science was unable to discern infinity's boundary in order to make a measurement.

Scientific instruments are much more precise than bodily senses. I fail to see how god could be felt by a weaker instrument, yet not be felt by a stronger one.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Uh, it appears that your concept of the divine is rather primitive. The entirety of your post is rebuked by either one of two words: "panentheism" or "infinity."

He's not even addressing those positions, though. Obviously this OP was directed at people who claim that God is a being outside of our universe. If you don't believe that, then he is not disagreeing with you in the OP.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
Perhaps. I meant to say every christian that I've gotten cornered in an argument. The argument is usually a last resort so to speak, and so dififcult to counter by the friends of mine that don't believe.

Okay, I kinda thought something like that was going on. I can't imagine a relatively sophisticated Christian pressing such an argument.

First, might I ask, why is an argument that a theologion made on the radio not acceptable? In terms of what the religious believe, it is certainly more valid than the internet, which is filled with so much false claims that it's hard to judge what christians believe, never mind atheists. Too much propaganda.

I guess it's acceptable, but I have to take your word for it that you're representing that speaker's argument faithfully. At least if it's in print, I can analyze the argument the speaker made, and if you've misunderstood it or are unfairly treating it, I can see that. I guess I see the argument of the OP as so sophomoric that I find it hard to believe that professional theologians (as opposed to apologetic hacks) subscribe to it.

The topic of this thread, however, is the flaws found in the argument that may or may not be advanced by anyone on this planet. If you find yourself wanting to advance the argument, you must remember this thread, as you will have to defend yourself against the observed flaws in the argument.

Okay, fair enough I suppose. I guess what I'm concerned about is the possibility that you're indirectly casting aspersions on some kinds of theists by presenting one of their apologetic arguments in strawman form. Hence my concern that you present this argument as presented by a respected theologian rather than a sophomoric apologetic enthusiast.

However, let me say this. This particular argument could be brought forward by any person, well-informed, or desperate. If you, or your religion, claims that god is inside the universe, then obviously the flaw does not apply to you so you needn't worry. I would be interested in learning why you think, or eve IF you think, god can not be at least observed through science. But obviously, if you claim that god is inside the universe, then the above flaw does not apply.

I guess I reject the whole inside/outside dichotomy. I believe nature declares the glory of God. I believe God can and does act within the universe. I believe the universe and God are ontologically separate.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
Scientific instruments are much more precise than bodily senses. I fail to see how god could be felt by a weaker instrument, yet not be felt by a stronger one.

Weak/strong, precise/rough aren't at issue. The issue is whether the instrument is designed to detect the phenomenon in question. Humans are designed to perceive God. None of our physical inventions are.
 

Cacafire

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacafire
I am not arguing from my own experience.

What are you arguing from then?
Logic, possibly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacafire
Becaue interaction is required for experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacafire
In you're previous post you advanced the idea that God is bound by rules completely different from logic or science.

I'm confused. I could have sworn that I said


Quote:

Originally Posted by Me
Here you are bounding a creator to the same laws that you yourself seem to be bound to.
You seem to be objecting to the laws through which we subject everything. It's funny, because you say an omnipotent god could subject himself to whatever rules he wanted to, regardless of the rules we use down here! Unfortunately, the category of, "omnipotent" is formed using the rules we use down here. The fact that you are designating god as "omnipotent" shows that you are using "man-made" rules, to justify ignoring all "man-made" rules. The obvious fallacy is that since the rule you are using justifying ignoring "earth rules" is itself an "earth rule" it would be wrong. But if the rule you are using is wrong, so is your argument. more on this later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacafire
You advanced this because you wanted to justify whatever you wanted to say, and not have anyone attack you.

Interesting hypothesis. I already offered you the alternative. I'm guessing (like so much else in this thread), you just ignored it. I'll repost it just in the hopes that you might consider it, though!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
On the contrary, common sense dictates the argument that I've already presented. Perhaps the convenience of common sense supporting my argument should point out the fallacy in your own position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacafire
Well, since common sense dicatates the argument that you've presented, you should be able to list those "good reasons" with quite the ease.

Just for your entertainment, I'll do it once again, sir!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cacafire
Please, elaborate using common sense:

If you are arguing that god is outside the universe,


No.

Just by reading this, I am utterly confused. You said that you had a common sense reason for accepting some sort of alternative explanation...? How can you say that when I have not offered any explanation? All I've done is point out a flaw in a particular argument for god's existence beyond the reaches of science.

If you are proposing an alternative argument for why god is outside the reaches of science, then I haven't heard it. I'll go back and look at the previous posts, though. I could have missed something.

Also, you just said, right here, that you are not arguing that god is outside the universe. You seem to not understand that I was using the term, "you" as a class pluralitive, which translates better as, "if anyone". I was simply tired from typing so much, and "you" was much shorter.

I'm glad you are not advancing the above argument. But then I am not attacking you. I am only pointing out flaws in that very same argument. Since you are not advancing it, you could hardly be expected to defend it!

I think that it has been pointed out to you at least 5 different times in this very thread that this is just flat out wrong. I'll quote someone else for support here, because they said it much better than I:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule
Might not be common sense, but it IS logic.
And since the first argument relies on logic to say that science can say nothing about god, it must also rely on the same logic that says god cannot access that which he is apart from.


*sigh*


I have pointed out numerous times that I never took the first principle to be true. Never. Not once. The keyword is IF someone takes a principle as true, then they have to take that principle as true in all instances where that principle comes into play. I don't know why you think that that can not be true. Is this computer grey when it's on my desk, but then vibrantly red in the ocean?

Jayhawker, I know you pride yourself on scholarship. But then, can you honestly say that it is acceptable to believe in the validity principle only when it suits your interests?

I don't see how you can maintain that. I've said it once. And I know what you think about saying it multiple times, but I'm still going to say it again, because there is no escaping it, there is no way to have an honest discussion with you if you are going to maintain that you can accept a principle as valid in one instance, and wrong in another.

Now, you said before that you did not believe in the validity of the principle of god being outside the universe and therefore outside of science. Then the argument does not apply to you.
 

Cacafire

Member
Weak/strong, precise/rough aren't at issue. The issue is whether the instrument is designed to detect the phenomenon in question. Humans are designed to perceive God. None of our physical inventions are.

I'm afraid that is wishful thinking, Dunemeister. The brain, as well as the senses, are only good at percieving material reality. If we were "designed" to percieve god, then we would not make graven images. And god would not have needed to turn himself into a man in order to get us to figure it out. (I don't even believe jesus really was the son of god, though. Just a charismatic figure who got people to believe in him)

But the human body and mind is not an instrument "designed" for percieiving god. Yes people say we can percieve him. If that is the case, then so can scientific instruments, which are tuned to the same phenomena, and hundreds of times more accurate.
 

Cacafire

Member
Okay, I kinda thought something like that was going on. I can't imagine a relatively sophisticated Christian pressing such an argument.



I guess it's acceptable, but I have to take your word for it that you're representing that speaker's argument faithfully. At least if it's in print, I can analyze the argument the speaker made, and if you've misunderstood it or are unfairly treating it, I can see that. I guess I see the argument of the OP as so sophomoric that I find it hard to believe that professional theologians (as opposed to apologetic hacks) subscribe to it.
Ah. You're right. I will try to find this argument in print.
Okay, fair enough I suppose. I guess what I'm concerned about is the possibility that you're indirectly casting aspersions on some kinds of theists by presenting one of their apologetic arguments in strawman form. Hence my concern that you present this argument as presented by a respected theologian rather than a sophomoric apologetic enthusiast.
I think you are mistaking what constitutes a "straw man" form of reasoning. In my opinion(thus I could be wrong), a straw man is an argument that ignores wether an argument is true or not, and focuses on some drawback that would result from it.

My argument is not saying that the christian would have to believe in an impotence of god if he believes the principle, and therefore shouldn't believe the first principle. I am not saying that. I am arguing only that if the principle be stated as true in one instance, it must be taken as true in all instances. If you believe god is outside the universe(remember: "if"), then the principle behind that statement should always be true. I think, with a strawman, the conclusion is taken to mean that the first principle can not be true. But I am not arguing that. Actually, I am making no claims at all to the validity of the statement that "god is outside the universe, and therefore unable to be detected by science". That may, or may as well be true. But if you accept the principle behind the statement, then you must accept it in all instances, and that principle would lead us to also advance that god can not access the universe he is apart from.

But I am not claiming that the argument is true, or untrue, so I fail to see how it can be a straw man. I only wish to point out an inconsistency in following principles.
I guess I reject the whole inside/outside dichotomy. I believe nature declares the glory of God. I believe God can and does act within the universe. I believe the universe and God are ontologically separate.

I reject the whole inside/outside dichotomy as well. :) It was for those people that might advance this argument that I am pointing out the flaw. Don't worry about it. :)
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
The "strawman" is an argument built of straw for the purpose that it can more easily be burned down.

In this thread both the theist and the scientist are presented with their arms waving in the wind.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
Logically, there is no "outside" of the multiverse, as the multiverse is infinite in scope, and the outside is therefore undefined. Of course, I don't believe god exists, and certainly has never verifiably(everybody agrees) detected "inside" the multiverse.
Logically, there's no outside God, either.

The multiverse theory isn't science: it's not falsifiable and "has never been verifiably (everybody agrees) detected."
 
Last edited:
Top