There is no evidence of God

[Ben Dhyan]

There is no evidence of God...

Reminds me of the joke...one fish says to another fish "Where's this ocean everyone is talking about"?

 

[Yerda]

It may be inaccurate but it is in no way circular.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

 

[Thief]

I knew you had zero evidence to back your statement

How many times....and yet once more....

No photos, no fingerprints, no equations and no experiments.
No proof.

You just have to think about it.

 

[outhouse]

How many times....and yet once more....

No photos, no fingerprints, no equations and no experiments.
No proof.

You just have to think about it.

Yes I know. You have faith and imagination.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And how far has that gotten those who insist that? Has the world population in it's entirety thrown up their hands and said, "Yep, there's no God. It's been proven." Just as the entire world hasn't thrown up their hands and said "Yep, there is a God. It's been proven."

This isn't relevant (basically just an argumentum ad populum)... What people think and what is the case are not necessarily the same (and often aren't- the majority of people tend to believe in religious myths, conspiracy theories, ghost sightings, and all manner of things that aren't true).

In this phase or dimension of existence, I have yet to encounter a round square. But this dimension isn't the only one, is it? Until I've searched the entire universe, as well as every available dimension there might be, I cannot say there exists nothing that I would define as a 'round square'. I can put my faith in experts who tell me that no round squares exist, and even use their methods of proving it myself just to be sure, but that's about it. There's a lot to our existence that's uncharted territory yet.

It's one thing for me to say I don't believe a round square exists, or that I haven't seen evidence that suits me as to its existence. But it's quite another for me to authoritatively declare that they absotively, posilutely, don't exist.

You could never encounter a round square in any "phase of existence" or "different dimension" (whatever that's supposed to mean) because the property of being a square excludes the property of being a circle.

In other words, you can let out your breath.

Like I said in another post, I can't prove that tomorrow exists, yet you should see my calendar.

You're confusing inductive reasoning (i.e. predictions of the future based on what has happened in the past) with deductive reasoning. We're talking about the latter here; we can prove that, for instance, no being can be both omnipotent and necessary (or eternal)- whereas we can only establish a high likelihood that tomorrow will come. (this is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning)

 

[Astravalon]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

We often attribute a higher being to things we do not yet understand. Until we gain the knowledge of how something works. Basic examples include rain, lighting and tornados. At one time these were thought to be created by a deity. Until we understood how it worked.

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]How [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]things work[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] is one thing, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]and we can definitely look to science to explain all that[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]But I find the combination quite seamless of perceiving a creator who got the ball rolling and appreciating scientific explanations as to how the ball rolls as it does.[/FONT]

The complexities of the mind are not yet know. They will not be for some time. Acceptance that we do not none yet what caused something is the first step. Therefore it is more difficult to deal with a solid Religion views which tie ones thoughts to an already established sense of ones self. We often see effect and in our mind need to justify it by making up a cause.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I agree [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]about the complexities[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] (it's part of what keeps life's journey interesting! ). [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]My conclusions concerning a creator (cause) behind everything [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]feels [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]to me [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]like a perfectly natural given, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]imilar to concluding that the pyramids were put there by [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]somebody[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]. One might not know [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]which [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]somebody did it, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]but they can safely conclude that [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]somebody[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] did it[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I think the problem starts when folks get dogmatic about [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]which[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] somebody it was who did it, establishing dogmas, doctrines, crusades and inquisitions over it. Then, yeah, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]an[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] aversion to the belief in an intelligent designer – whether it involves pyramids or planets – would be perfectly understandable. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

'God' is again the fear of the unknown.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] That might depend on one's god-concept. My particular one doesn't involve fear, fortunately [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif](except in the case of spiders …. ugh)[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]. Plus, I appreciate a good paradigm-shift every now and again, so I've learned that “the unknown” can come with some very pleasant surprises. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif])[/FONT]

Does that mean you believe chairs are God/s. A remote control is God or do you see it more as energy?

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]In my current understanding a[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]s [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]a pan[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]en[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]theist, I believe everything is [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]in [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]God [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]– it's a part of [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif](but not [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]all[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] of) Him.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]God in all, and all in God, yet God goes beyond what we can perceive, into the (as of yet) unknown. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I personally subscribe to butterfingers. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Yum! [/FONT]

 

[Astravalon]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

What people think and what is the case are not necessarily the same

Ain't that the truth!

You could never encounter a round square in any "phase of existence" or "different dimension" (whatever that's supposed to mean) because the property of being a square excludes the property of being a circle.

In this plane of existence, it's highly unlikely that one would encounter what one would refer to as a “round square”. No one can speak definitively on what lies outside our realm of knowledge, however … unless one's using a degree of.... wait for it …. faith. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

You're confusing inductive reasoning (i.e. predictions of the future based on what has happened in the past) with deductive reasoning. We're talking about the latter here; we can prove that, for instance, no being can be both omnipotent and necessary (or eternal)- whereas we can only establish a high likelihood that tomorrow will come. (this is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning)

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Inductive, deductive… the effect is the same: w[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]e[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]'re going on a degree of [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]faith (that darned 'f' word again! ) that tomorrow will arrive and [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]therefore we[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] make various plans accordingly. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The point is, the inability to produce evidence of a tomorrow doesn't stop one [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]from accepting the strong possibility that they will, sooner or later, come face to face with it. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Just a speculation on the [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]inductive reasoning aspect [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]of this[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]: It might be possible that those who [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]sense[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] God are using that very type of mechanism in antici[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]pating His existence, if their own pre-existence has any truth to it. In that case, they're experiencing the present and predicting the future based on what has happened in their past, i.e., when they were with God prior to incarnating (and/or in between incarnations) here on earth. Again, just speculation. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[yoda89]

There is no evidence of God...

Reminds me of the joke...one fish says to another fish "Where's this ocean everyone is talking about"?

The fish in this represent living being observing their surrounding. As physical beings we often look outward and observe our surrounding and define them to our choosing. While it may be argued that the ocean is actually a reflection of ones choosing. Both of the fish live in the ocean and one of this fish is unaware of its physical surrounding. Therefore the fish who does know what the ocean would explain to the fish not understanding its surrounding it is merely a predetermined ocean that has been proven by physical to be the ocean. Thus the one who does know by evidence can apply these findings to other fish. The unknowing fish who would either accept this definition of this evidence or seek another type that has yet to be proven. If the first fish does so he attempts to seek another predetermined definition yet understood by present physical evidence. Either way the representation of the fish is predetermined know by unknown physical evidence

 

[yoda89]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]How [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]things work[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] is one thing, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]and we can definitely look to science to explain all that[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]But I find the combination quite seamless of perceiving a creator who got the ball rolling and appreciating scientific explanations as to how the ball rolls as it does.

[/FONT]

The notion of a predetermined creator is possible. But this predetermination would be physical as all things are. The other theory or thought is that if something created everything who created that being. What physical matter did it take to get the ball rolling is the true question. Yet it will scientific as we have discovered all things are.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

I agree

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]about the complexities[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] (it's part of what keeps life's journey interesting! ).

[/FONT]

I do very much agree

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

My conclusions concerning a creator (cause) behind everything

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]feels [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]to me [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]like a perfectly natural given, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]imilar to concluding that the pyramids were put there by [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]somebody[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]. One might not know [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]which [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]somebody did it, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]but they can safely conclude that [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]somebody[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] did it[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif].

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT]
It always come back to who created the singular being who created everything. We create or would could also be expressed as discovering.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

I think the problem starts when folks get dogmatic about

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]which[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] somebody it was who did it, establishing dogmas, doctrines, crusades and inquisitions over it. Then, yeah, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]an[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] aversion to the belief in an intelligent designer – whether it involves pyramids or planets – would be perfectly understandable. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]That might depend on one's god-concept. My particular one doesn't involve fear, fortunately [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif](except in the case of spiders …. ugh)[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]. Plus, I appreciate a good paradigm-shift every now and again, so I've learned that “the unknown” can come with some very pleasant surprises. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]:[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif])

[/FONT]

I do agree it is difficult that people follow dogmas(great movie). While these dogmas may hold some truth as saying we are nothing however we are everything. Many do not understand or think of the philosophical words they are stating. I do indeed also believe that a majority of the physical world can be explained by pagan worship and the five forces. Yet I view that as already established equations that give life and death to human beings now understood causes of effects. (Takes out all the cool words I know)

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

In my current understanding a

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]s [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]a pan[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]en[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]theist, I believe everything is [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]in [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]God [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]– it's a part of [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif](but not [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]all[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] of) Him.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]God in all, and all in God, yet God goes beyond what we can perceive, into the (as of yet) unknown.

[/FONT]

I never could wrap my head around people stating that everything is God unless the definition of everything is not established as a creator and more of the misunderstood that everything is the creator. They seem to contradict as political equality and freedom of choice. Which are also contradictions

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Very yum:cover:[/FONT]

 

[Enai de a lukal]

In this plane of existence, it's highly unlikely that one would encounter what one would refer to as a “round square”.

No. It is logically impossible, not highly unlikely. Likelihood is basically just probability, which applies to induction, not deduction.

No one can speak definitively on what lies outside our realm of knowledge, however … unless one's using a degree of.... wait for it …. faith.

No faith required. As I said, in order for some X to fulfill the condition of "being a square", it is logically necessary (i.e. absolute, universal) that that X can NOT fulfill the condition of "being a circle". Thus, one can say, without any possibility of future falsification, that nothing which is a square is round.

Similarly with what I've mentioned above God; we can say, definitively, that there is no such thing that is both omnipotent and necessary, atemporal and intervening, and so on.

Inductive, deductive… the effect is the same: we're going on a degree of faith (that darned 'f' word again! ) that tomorrow will arrive and therefore we make various plans accordingly. The point is, the inability to produce evidence of a tomorrow doesn't stop one from accepting the strong possibility that they will, sooner or later, come face to face with it.

Right. And this is certainly a fair point with respect to inductive reasoning; there is always an element of "faith" required. But the point simply doesn't apply to deductive reasoning, because of the fundamental differences between these two types of reasonings.

Deductive reason produces logical truths and falsehoods, which are absolute and cannot be controverted, even in principle. However, they tell us essentially nothing about the world, because they concern the form of language, rather than the content. I can deduce, for instance, from "the cat is on the mat" that the cat is not somewhere other than the mat; this is logical consequence.

But I cannot deduce whether the cat is actually on the mat, or how likely the cat is to be on the mat, this is a matter of inductive reasoning. So here's the trade-off; deductive reasoning is absolutely certain, but can tell us nothing about the world of facts- it can only tell us what follows from what, not what is the case. Induction on the other hand, is fallible (prone to error), can never attain absolute certainty, but it can tell us things about the world.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No. It is logically impossible, not highly unlikely. Likelihood is basically just probability, which applies to induction, not deduction.


No faith required. As I said, in order for some X to fulfill the condition of "being a square", it is logically necessary (i.e. absolute, universal) that that X can NOT fulfill the condition of "being a circle". Thus, one can say, without any possibility of future falsification, that nothing which is a square is round.

Similarly with what I've mentioned above God; we can say, definitively, that there is no such thing that is both omnipotent and necessary, atemporal and intervening, and so on.


Right. And this is certainly a fair point with respect to inductive reasoning; there is always an element of "faith" required. But the point simply doesn't apply to deductive reasoning, because of the fundamental differences between these two types of reasonings.

Deductive reason produces logical truths and falsehoods, which are absolute and cannot be controverted, even in principle. However, they tell us essentially nothing about the world, because they concern the form of language, rather than the content. I can deduce, for instance, from "the cat is on the mat" that the cat is not somewhere other than the mat; this is logical consequence.

But I cannot deduce whether the cat is actually on the mat, or how likely the cat is to be on the mat, this is a matter of inductive reasoning. So here's the trade-off; deductive reasoning is absolutely certain, but can tell us nothing about the world of facts- it can only tell us what follows from what, not what is the case. Induction on the other hand, is fallible (prone to error), can never attain absolute certainty, but it can tell us things about the world.

Whole lot a big words, were naught but humble pirates.

That being said.

Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent being to exist even as a contradiction (what with being omnipotent and all).

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent being to exist even as a contradiction (what with being omnipotent and all).

No; omnipotence is generally defined as the capacity to enact any and all logically possible states of affairs. "Existing as a contradiction" is not logically possible, nor is the phrase even meaningful.

("existing as a contradiction" is not conceivable, even in principle; one cannot conceive of a thing that is completely white and completely red all over, or something existing and not existing at the same time and in the same respect, and so on)

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No; omnipotence is generally defined as the capacity to enact any and all logically possible states of affairs. "Existing as a contradiction" is not logically possible, nor is the phrase even meaningful.

("existing as a contradiction" is not conceivable, even in principle; one cannot conceive of a thing that is completely white and completely red all over, or something existing and not existing at the same time and in the same respect, and so on)

I thought it was generally defined as having virtually unlimited power, but I guess the virtually part is what puts it within logical binds?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I thought it was generally defined as having virtually unlimited power, but I guess the virtually part is what puts it within logical binds?

Thinking of the "laws" of logic as being constraints on omnipotence is misleading; the states of affairs which are excluded by logic (i.e. states of affairs which are contradictory) are basically pseudo-states of affairs; "the cat is on the mat and not on the mat" does not describe any actual configuration of reality, or any possible state of affairs, it is a combination of two phrases which DO describe possible configurations of reality that exclude one another- thus the conjunction is basically just word-salad, as it were; it doesn't actually describe anything.

Thus, not being able to enact a pseudo-state of affairs, a state of affairs which is not even a possible or intelligible configuration of reality, is not a deficiency. Saying an inability to, for instance, make 2+2 come out to 5 is a deficiency in power is a bit like claiming that someone stole your racecar when you never had a racecar in the first place.

 

[Sir Doom]

What do you call a being that is exactly like the definition of omnipotence but can also do logically impossible things? Super-omnipotent?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What do you call a being that is exactly like the definition of omnipotence but can also do logically impossible things? Super-omnipotent?

Nonsense. A contradiction. Word-salad.

Any of these would fit.

"do logically impossible things" is a contradictory phrase (being "logically impossible" means that it cannot be done, even in principle) and so "omnipotence but can also do logically impossible things" is no more meaningful than "infinity plus 5" or "north of the North Pole".

 

[Sir Doom]

Nonsense. A contradiction. Word-salad.

Any of these would fit.

So... you wouldn't call it super-omnipotence?

"do logically impossible things" is a contradictory phrase (being "logically impossible" means that it cannot be done, even in principle) and so "omnipotence but can also do logically impossible things" is no more meaningful than "infinity plus 5" or "north of the North Pole".

I'm sorry, but I don't define existence based on what you find meaningful. The fact that it is a contradiction is a bit irrelevant considering the subject. This is merely an exploitation of the limitations of human language used as a backdoor out of an honest answer to my question.

Omnipotence (as defined by you) itself exists solely within the human imagination. And, we can safely say, that whatever it is that you and I imagine as 'omnipotence' is nothing at all like it actually is. We simply don't have the capacity to imagine something so vast to any degree of accuracy. And yet, here we are discussing it all the same. I find it very odd not to take what I consider to be a teensy weensy baby step beyond what we are already imagining and consider this being doing things that defy reality completely. That is sort of the only thing that would set it apart as omnipotent, if you ask me.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So... you wouldn't call it super-omnipotence?

Sure- call it "super-egg-salad-sandwich" for all it matters; as long as its understood that whatever we call it, its nonsense.

I'm sorry, but I don't define existence based on what you find meaningful. The fact that it is a contradiction is a bit irrelevant considering the subject.

Lol... All the worse for the subject then; if it admits contradictions, then it is assuredly false.

And you're right, you don't have to define existence based on "what I find meaningful" (codeword for "what is logically coherent" since its hardly MY criteria)- but if your definition of existence includes non-existent things (such as things with contradictory properties, like round squares and God) then your usage of "existence" differs from everyone else, and you're unable to communicate with the rest of us.

To wit, in general its a good idea to use words in accordance with their actual meaning, rather than some novel crackpot usage you've devised on your own.

This is merely an exploitation of the limitations of human language used as a backdoor out of an honest answer to my question.

Hardly. Asking about "super-omnipotence" is exactly the same as asking about "north of the North Pole"; omnipotence is, by definition, the limit of power, so "super-omnipotence" is a contradiction in terms.

Omnipotence (as defined by you)

(and everyone else)

itself exists solely within the human imagination.

Agreed. The bottom line is that there is probably no such thing as omnipotence.

We simply don't have the capacity to imagine something so vast to any degree of accuracy.

The whole "we can't comprehend it" canard doesn't help, since we're the ones attributing omnipotence to God in the first place- you're trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. If we can't understand what omnipotence is, then we are hardly justified in claiming that God is omnipotent. This line of reasoning is self-defeating.

 

[McBell]

We simply don't have the capacity to imagine something so vast to any degree of accuracy.

yet there are millions upon millions of people who claim to not only understand it, but even speak for it...

 

[nash8]

Really? So, because discussions about the basics of QM are still quite necessary (the public by and large being completely ignorant on this subject) then... the basics of QM are not definitive?

This just seems non-sequitur.

No. If the concept of God entails a contradiction, then we can say, definitively, that there is no such thing.

And any definition of God which includes any of the pairs of attributes I mentioned above cannot exist, anymore than a round square could exist.

QM is full of "logical contradictions lol. Can one object be moving and not moving at the same time?
Scientists supersize quantum mechanics: Scientific American

Your logic is limited by the number of neurons, amongst many other things, in your brain. Just because YOU conclude something is a logical contradiction according to YOUR logic does not mean it is universally illogical.

And deductive reasoning only works in mathematics, everything else is inductively reasoned.

This is just word salad. Energy is not a substance, nor is it an entity that could possibly be intelligent.

Energy is just a shorthand way of describing states that things are in. If an apple hangs from a tree, we say it has potential energy, but the apple is in no way different than if it were on the ground.

This new-agey talk of energy is just a new-fangled kind of superstition.

What is your definition of intelligence? What gives humans "intelligence"? I don't mean the logical definition of memory recall, anaylsis, attention etc, etc. I mean the actual scientific bioelectromagnetic/chemical process and how these directly correlate to what we define as logical intelligence. If you know what makes cognition possible, I'm sure their are quite a few cognitive neuroscientists that would be interested in knowing this information as well, I can think of one on this very forum.

My apologies, I used the word energy because I didn't want to list out all of the objects/particles/waves that drive energetic processes. When I say energy I mean the particles that drive energetic movements. In your example of the apple, the "energy" for me would be the particles of quantum mechanics that cause the apple to fall from the tree. I sometimes forget that I'm actually conversing with intelligent people and I don't have to dumb it down lol.

Nonsense. A contradiction. Word-salad.

Any of these would fit.

"do logically impossible things" is a contradictory phrase (being "logically impossible" means that it cannot be done, even in principle) and so "omnipotence but can also do logically impossible things" is no more meaningful than "infinity plus 5" or "north of the North Pole".

Does infinity plus one have any meaningful purpose?

Infinity plus one - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hyperreal number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it logically impossible to have a cube with more than six sides?
Tesseract with Time as Fourth Dimension