My experience and gods existence

[KWED]

I imagine it would suck if it were possible for such a world to exist.

You don't have to imagine.
It looks like this one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmm. Perhaps you should look up "axiom" in the dictionary.

No, I know. But some people believe that this axiom means that is an fact: "that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers." Or any other axiom to that effect. It is not a fact, it is a part of methodological naturalism. But some people don't understand.

 

[Brian2]

In the same way that not playing tennis can be seen as a sport.

No. If you are brought up in an environment where a belief in God is not acknowledged then you end up getting the idea that there is no God.

It is absolutely true that science has not found any need for god to explain any process or event.
However, I am happy to be corrected - so give some examples of known processes or events where god is a necessity. You did seem pretty certain so looking forward to your reply.

Are you kidding me? How is science going to acknowledge a need for a God? Science cannot do that without first having scientific evidence for a God.
What I said is below:
"You are wrong if you think science has shown that no God is necessary for the creation of what we see around us. That particular idea is guesswork."
Are you saying that because science does not acknowledge a God or a need for a God that there is no God?

 

[night912]

I imagine it would suck if it were possible for such a world to exist.

You didn't answer my question. I asked you what an actual world without a god looks like, not your imaginary world.

If you don't know what a world without a god looks like, then how did you determined that this world is not a world without a god? Basically you're just imagining that this is a world with a god.

 

[night912]

No. If you are brought up in an environment where a belief in God is not acknowledged then you end up getting the idea that there is no God.

No. You don't and can't have the idea that there is no God since you don't have a concept of God. Can you give me an example of a something that does not exist that you are never aware of/never heard about/have no concept of it.

 

[KWED]

No, I know. But some people believe that this axiom means that is an fact: "that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers." Or any other axiom to that effect. It is not a fact, it is a part of methodological naturalism. But some people don't understand.

That statement is axiomatic. And the point of an axiom is that it is assumed to be true and treated as such.

Maybe you should look it up because it seems that you don't know.

 

[KWED]

No. If you are brought up in an environment where a belief in God is not acknowledged then you end up getting the idea that there is no God.

In the same way that if you are brought up not being told black people are inferior, you end up not being a racist. But that is not indoctrination, it is pretty much the opposite.

If you are told repeatedly that there is no god and discouraged from critically examining that claim, then that would count as indoctrination. However, for myself and others I have talked to about it, religion simply wasn't an issue at home. We just didn't talk about it, although the importance of reserving judgement on issues until the evidence has been examined is something I was taught from an early age. You can't be indoctrinated into something by not being told about it.

Are you kidding me? How is science going to acknowledge a need for a God? Science cannot do that without first having scientific evidence for a God.

If a supernatural element is required for the universe to work, there should be some sign for that. The need for the Higgs Boson was acknowledged before there was any scientific evidence for it.

What I said is below:
"You are wrong if you think science has shown that no God is necessary for the creation of what we see around us. That particular idea is guesswork."
Are you saying that because science does not acknowledge a God or a need for a God that there is no God?

I will repeat - science has shown that no god is necessary for the universe as we know it, not that there is no god.

However, if something is undetectable, has no effect on anything that is detectable, and is not required for any known process or explanation - how is that any different from "nothing"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That statement is axiomatic. And the point of an axiom is that it is assumed to be true and treated as such.

Maybe you should look it up because it seems that you don't know.

Okay, I stand corrected. Here is one axiom, that some people use: A creator God exists. Thus it is assumed to be true and treated as such.

 

[Brian2]

No. You don't and can't have the idea that there is no God since you don't have a concept of God. Can you give me an example of a something that does not exist that you are never aware of/never heard about/have no concept of it.

I don't really care if you want to make a distinction between lack of belief and belief that there is no God, you are just being awkward for no good reason.

 

[Brian2]

You didn't answer my question. I asked you what an actual world without a god looks like, not your imaginary world.

If you don't know what a world without a god looks like, then how did you determined that this world is not a world without a god? Basically you're just imagining that this is a world with a god.

You're just imagining that this is a world without a God.

 

[Brian2]

In the same way that if you are brought up not being told black people are inferior, you end up not being a racist. But that is not indoctrination, it is pretty much the opposite.

If you are told repeatedly that there is no god and discouraged from critically examining that claim, then that would count as indoctrination. However, for myself and others I have talked to about it, religion simply wasn't an issue at home. We just didn't talk about it, although the importance of reserving judgement on issues until the evidence has been examined is something I was taught from an early age. You can't be indoctrinated into something by not being told about it.

You grow up usually with the same beliefs or lack of beliefs as your parents. If they lack belief in God, that lack of belief shows that God is not important to them and it ends up not being important to you. The absence of imput is just as much an indoctrination as being taught about it and to believe it.

If a supernatural element is required for the universe to work, there should be some sign for that. The need for the Higgs Boson was acknowledged before there was any scientific evidence for it.

I will repeat - science has shown that no god is necessary for the universe as we know it, not that there is no god.

However, if something is undetectable, has no effect on anything that is detectable, and is not required for any known process or explanation - how is that any different from "nothing"?

You just do not know that an undetactable thing has no effect on anything that is detectable or is not required for any known process or explanation.
The Higgs Boson was not imagined years ago and so was in the same position of being undetectable and so thought to be not required for anything. How many other things will science find that end up being absolutely necessary for everything to hang together and work, but which cannot be detected now.

 

[KWED]

Okay, I stand corrected. Here is one axiom, that some people use: A creator God exists. Thus it is assumed to be true and treated as such.

Yes, some people treat the existence of a god as axiomatic, but it is more of a claim than an axiom in the way that a shared objective reality is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, some people treat the existence of a god as axiomatic, but it is more of a claim than an axiom in the way that a shared objective reality is.

Yeah, I know. You are right and I am wrong. So now you have stated an objective fact about how parts of the world works. There are wrong people, just as there is gravity.

 

[KWED]

You grow up usually with the same beliefs or lack of beliefs as your parents. If they lack belief in God, that lack of belief shows that God is not important to them and it ends up not being important to you. The absence of imput is just as much an indoctrination as being taught about it and to believe it.

I suggest you Google "indoctrination. Here's a start...
Indoctrination: The process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. (OED)

You just do not know that an undetactable thing has no effect on anything that is detectable or is not required for any known process or explanation.

But that was my point, even if it dies exist, it is no different to "nothing", which has the same properties.

The Higgs Boson was not imagined years ago and so was in the same position of being undetectable and so thought to be not required for anything.

Wrong. Higgs proposed a specific particle which was required to explain some observations in 1964. That exact particle was not detected until 2012.

How many other things will science find that end up being absolutely necessary for everything to hang together and work, but which cannot be detected now.

You are missing the point. You are not claiming that there may be future discoveries that we are currently unaware of any need for and have no hypotheses for. You are claiming that a specific particle exists and is required for the universe to work, but there are no observations on which to base that claim.

It's like me telling the science community that the KWED Boson exists and is required for the universe to work. When they ask me for my observations and calculations to support this claim, I just say "How could the universe work without it. Everything relies on the KWED Boson."
How seriously do you think they would take me?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suggest you Google "indoctrination. Here's a start...
Indoctrination: The process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. (OED)
...

And so people have learned that everything can be observed as right and other ways of acting are wrong.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You didn't answer my question. I asked you what an actual world without a god looks like, not your imaginary world.

If you don't know what a world without a god looks like, then how did you determined that this world is not a world without a god? Basically you're just imagining that this is a world with a god.

There are no worlds that God didn't create. Nothing could exist without a creator.
But then we have the one world perfectly designed for human life. And yet people try to pretend it just happened by a cosmic accident. The universe wet its pants and earth was formed? It's a fairy tale far less believable than God.

 

[Brian2]

I suggest you Google "indoctrination. Here's a start...
Indoctrination: The process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. (OED)

So indoctrination is too strong a word for the way most people are brought up by their parents, be it with a belief in God or without.

But that was my point, even if it dies exist, it is no different to "nothing", which has the same properties.

Of course it is different to nothing if it is important for how things are and operate.

Wrong. Higgs proposed a specific particle which was required to explain some observations in 1964. That exact particle was not detected until 2012.

It does not really matter if I was 100% right or not, the analogy is the important thing. Dark matter/energy might be a better one. Not detectable except by interactions but probably absolutely necessary for the us and the universe to exist and operate.
An undetectable thing is not the same as nothing,,,,,,,,,,,,,sometimes these undetectable things are essential.

It's like me telling the science community that the KWED Boson exists and is required for the universe to work. When they ask me for my observations and calculations to support this claim, I just say "How could the universe work without it. Everything relies on the KWED Boson."
How seriously do you think they would take me?

You seem to be thinking only in terms of what science can detect, as if that is the be all and end all of whether God exists.

 

[KWED]

There are no worlds that God didn't create.

Well, there's this one for starters.

Nothing could exist without a creator.

What about snowflakes? They don't have a creator.

But then we have the one world perfectly designed for human life.

But it isn't.
Most of its surface is uninhabitable. Much of the rest either needs cooling or heating too be liveable. Overexposure to the sun or cold damages tissue irreparably. Geological and meteorological instability regularly kill thousands and destroy communities.
If this planet was designed for human life, the designer was an idiot.

And yet people try to pretend it just happened by a cosmic accident.

Nobody is pretending. It is what the evidence points to.

The universe wet its pants and earth was formed? It's a fairy tale far less believable than God.

If you want to try and criticise the current scientific position on something, you should at least try and learn what that position is. Wilful ignorance is not a good look.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, there's this one for starters.
...

Is that a fact?

 

[ratiocinator]

Nothing could exist without a creator.

Let me guess; except for your favourite species of god...? Special pleading.