Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Renault]

It sounds like this thread is quickly going all time-cube on us. I think we should be able to set aside the probability-of-one-infinity thing because, lets face it, its sort of silly.

[Shrugging Khan]

That german guy with the beans, right?

peas

I stand corrected.

[MC Dirty]

It sounds like this thread is quickly going all time-cube on us. I think we should be able to set aside the probability-of-one-infinity thing because, lets face it, its sort of silly.

How is it silly? I don't quite see your point.´

[Siquo]

Hi guys, I'm baaaack

I find it funny that the concept of a "primal mover" (in whatever shape or form) is actually countered by the concept of an infinite amount of universes combined with anthropocentrism, for which there is an equal amount of scientific proof (string theory has no proof (yet)). I do not know which is actually more far-fetched.
Of course, they could still both be true.

I'm with Sowelu on a number of points, except for his arguments. I don't think there's any argument that can prove or disprove the existence of (a) God.

[Shrugging Khan]

Because the concept of god is formulated especially so as to not be dis-/provable?

[Siquo]

Because the concept of god is formulated especially so as to not be dis-/provable?

"the concept of god"
There are many, formulated in many ways. The existence of a multiverse is equally unprovable.

Also, you insinuate that the people who came up with the concept of a god specifically tried to escape scientific scrutiny.
[badanalogy]That's like saying that bacteria are so small because they don't want to be seen.[/badanalogy]
In any case, it's a weird thing to insinuate. Most god-concepts are a lot older than "provability".

[Andir]

Because the concept of god is formulated especially so as to not be dis-/provable?

"the concept of god"
There are many, formulated in many ways. The existence of a multiverse is equally unprovable.

Also, you insinuate that the people who came up with the concept of a god specifically tried to escape scientific scrutiny.
[badanalogy]That's like saying that bacteria are so small because they don't want to be seen.[/badanalogy]
In any case, it's a weird thing to insinuate. Most god-concepts are a lot older than "provability".

Not to escape scientific scrutiny... to escape inquiry.  Gods were created to both explain phenomenon and, in part, to control people.  When the Kings found out that this God person was feared more than they were... they had to use this to their advantage!  It also may be that people would naturally be afraid of something that could make or unmake all that is in a snap of the finger.  Siding with that thing was natural survival.

[Siquo]

Not to escape scientific scrutiny... to escape inquiry.  Gods were created to both explain phenomenon and, in part, to control people.

Perhaps. Using gods to explain phenomena and control people (or, in a more positive way, increase social cohesion) might be a spin-off from the original concept. Money can be used to control people but it wasn't specifically created for that purpose.

[Leafsnail]

I find it funny that the concept of a "primal mover" (in whatever shape or form) is actually countered by the concept of an infinite amount of universes combined with anthropocentrism, for which there is an equal amount of scientific proof (string theory has no proof (yet)). I do not know which is actually more far-fetched.
Of course, they could still both be true.

No anthropecentrism.  None at all.

All I'm saying is that the universe we're in is the universe we're in.

Kindof like "What is the chance that your sperm was the one that won the race?"

[Shrugging Khan]

Because the concept of god is formulated especially so as to not be dis-/provable?

"the concept of god"
There are many, formulated in many ways. The existence of a multiverse is equally unprovable.

Also, you insinuate that the people who came up with the concept of a god specifically tried to escape scientific scrutiny.
[badanalogy]That's like saying that bacteria are so small because they don't want to be seen.[/badanalogy]
In any case, it's a weird thing to insinuate. Most god-concepts are a lot older than "provability".

The people who take the side of theism or agnosticism in modern-day debates always formulate their concept of god specifically so it becomes impossible to prove or disprove.

[Sowelu]

And that's a problem why?  I thought this was a philosophical discussion.  Arguments of fact are completely different from debates of philosophy or policy.

Still, I think that quantum mechanics over the next century or two will shed some very interesting light on deism.

[Andir]

And that's a problem why?  I thought this was a philosophical discussion.

It's hard to have a discussion with someone who changes the rules then sticks their fingers in their ears.

[Leafsnail]

Arguments of fact are completely different from debates of philosophy or policy.

Well, that's just your philosophy .

Still, I think that quantum mechanics over the next century or two will shed some very interesting light on deism.

Hmm?

[Sowelu]

The OP says 'cogent arguments to convince others'.  That doesn't mean you need physical proof...unless your opponents won't be satisfied by anything less.  Which is valid I guess, but I guess that people who need physical proof don't enjoy philosophy, psychology, sociology, economics...

Me personally, I can be swayed by philosophical arguments.  So I don't mind making them.  In philosophy, provability and unprovability doesn't change my ability to be convinced.

Still, I think that quantum mechanics over the next century or two will shed some very interesting light on deism.

Hmm?

Quantum mechanics (or other exotic physics) keeps telling us more and more about the nature of the universe, and about its origins.  Scientists keep coming up with some VERY interesting theories about the start of the universe.  If they nail them down securely enough, well, maybe it will let us explore the existence or nonexistence of stuff outside the universe.  Is it possible for one universe to spawn other, entirely contained subuniverses?  Maybe, and proving that it can or can't could conceivably tell us about what a creator could or must have done, or could tell us that a creator is strictly unnecessary.  I can't predict what we'll find out or what it'll mean, only that I'm sure it will be very interesting.  I mean...learning that the sun didn't revolve around the sun threw a wrench into religious cosmology, just think what the existence of other universes will do.

I'm still waiting for us to find something really weird in physical laws or in math, something that makes us go "Wait, how did THAT get there".  Like, arranging the first 10^100 digits of pi in base 41 into a square matrix and seeing a perfect circle in zeroes.  Or finding a physicalist explanation for consciousness.

[Leafsnail]

The OP says 'cogent arguments to convince others'.  That doesn't mean you need physical proof...unless your opponents won't be satisfied by anything less.  Which is valid I guess, but I guess that people who need physical proof don't enjoy philosophy, psychology, sociology, economics...

Noone's demanding absolute proof, but I feel you need at least evidence.  Something that psychology, sociology and economics generally try to use.

Quantum mechanics (or other exotic physics) keeps telling us more and more about the nature of the universe, and about its origins.  Scientists keep coming up with some VERY interesting theories about the start of the universe.  If they nail them down securely enough, well, maybe it will let us explore the existence or nonexistence of stuff outside the universe.  Is it possible for one universe to spawn other, entirely contained subuniverses?  Maybe, and proving that it can or can't could conceivably tell us about what a creator could or must have done, or could tell us that a creator is strictly unnecessary.  I can't predict what we'll find out or what it'll mean, only that I'm sure it will be very interesting.  I mean...learning that the sun didn't revolve around the sun threw a wrench into religious cosmology, just think what the existence of other universes will do.

Not much.  As you say, it's impossible to disprove.

I'm still waiting for us to find something really weird in physical laws or in math, something that makes us go "Wait, how did THAT get there".  Like, arranging the first 10^100 digits of pi in base 41 into a square matrix and seeing a perfect circle in zeroes.

Well, you can find hidden messages in anything if you randomly shotgun enough.  I mean, look at this:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html