Just a thought: Would it be nice, and a prerequisite, to firstly agree with a logically and clearly derived definition of God that has been generally acceptable by the discussion community, in order to have this kind of discussion for some related topics? Or we would appear to be having too much time and energy to burn!
Is it impossible to really know gravity? Is it impossible to fully comprehend mass? Can we really grasp infinity? Is it possible to really know ANYTHING?? In a sense, maybe not, but to take this position means that any attempt at understanding is fundamentally futile. So why even begin? You can sit around like a carrot with a blank stare on your face, or you make the assumption that one can know things and know these things reliably if certain tools are properly applied. The alternative is you shut your mouth and never think another thought [about anything] So I choose the latter, I say YES we must assume the existence of god is knowable. The second part of Q is He provable. I say YES to this also, his possible existence is subject to same tools we will use on all our other notions. Why should "He" be any different or different rules apply regarding his proof? I say gather the evidence, turn over every rock, look in every nook and cranny, weigh it all [according to the rules] and arrive at a reasonable conclusion. So, YES his existence is knowable and potentially provable.
Oddtrader, This thread appears to me to be a "stalking horse" http://www.bartleby.com/81/15829.html whereby one or more individuals can feed their own egos sweet morsels for their conscienceses. The reason? I have no idea. John Bunyon would describe this debate as a quagmire which has consumed all sorts of building materials for many centuries while making no progress. To my thinking, believing in God involves a risk...the risk of rejection by peers or by those in positions of opinion leadership. I've looked back on the earlier thread about belief in God and am surprised that Rearden Metal is again hoisting this particular tournament flag. After starting the previous thread he had not much to say, so he appears to be fascinated by the process for it's own sake.
Here are just a few of the modern scientific geniuses who have challenged the old line, hard line materialism that is predominant on these threads: 1. Marcel P. Schutzenberger, MIT and Harvard mathematician and member French Academy of Sciences 2. Pierre P. Grasse, France's leading naturalist 3. Theodosium Dobzhansky, Columbia University geneticist 4. Paul Davies, well-known British physicist 5. George Ellis, Hawking coworker, Cambridge astrophysicist 6. Murray Eden MIT
***I've looked back on the earlier thread about belief in God and am surprised that Rearden Metal is again hoisting this particular tournament flag. After starting the previous thread he had not much to say, so he appears to be fascinated by the process for it's own sake.*** I often prefer to watch events unfold from a distance, without interferring- you know, like God does.
Here are a few more of the modern scientists who have challenged the "Copernican Revolution": 1. Gerald L. Schroeder, MIT physicist 2. Edmund Whittaker, Royal Society fellow 3. Charles Townes, Nobel laureate in physics 4. Freeman Dyson, astrophysicist 5. Charles Misner, Astrophysicist and pioneer in general relativity
I would definitely agree that an absolute belief that every word in the bible is literal and factual is at the very least illogical. But then again, many biblical scholars would similarly agree with that. However, the discussion was not about "believing in the bible", it involved "believing in God (or whatever one wants to call a universal creative intelligence)". While the former DOES presuppose the latter. The latter does NOT presuppose the former. The two should therefore not be simply exchanged at will as if they were anywhere near the same thing. Re: your second statement - those who believe there is no God/creative intelligence/whatever have no greater evidentiary support for that position than those who believe in God (in whatever form they see him/her/they/it). For those who have seemed to overlooked it - lack of evidence is NOT proof of non-existance. The ONLY thing that lack of evidence proves is that you don't have any evidence. Example - it was a universally held scientific conviction that the Coelacanth died 400 million years ago. Since no living specimens had ever been found, everyone KNEW with absolute certainty that the fish was nothing but an ancient fossil. At least until 1938 when one was finally found swimming in the ocean. Lack of evidence (prior to 1938) that the fish was still alive after 400 million years didn't keep it from actually being alive. Atheists have one opinion/belief. Those who believe in a God (in whatever form) also have an opinion/belief. In the absence of evidence to prove either opinion valid, neither can be ruled out nor can either realistically be said to have any greater merit than the other. Statements like "to believe in a God is by definition irrational" is hyperbole. By whose definition? Claiming that something is "by definition irrational" because it is contrary to your personal unproven OPINION is what is actually irrational. This is not the same as saying "if he believes himself to be Abraham Lincoln then by definition he's irrational" - since it can be proven that Abraham Lincoln is dead and thus he can't be him. An opinion that no God (in any form) exists is ONLY an OPINION. It is not factual, it is not demonstrable, it is in no way provable. It is itself (at best) merely an opinion or a "belief" (of no lesser or greater provability than the opposite view) or (at worst) a conceit to have concluded that some handful of primative organic assemblies only capable of using a tiny fraction of their small brains knows with absolute certainty that no such entity exists in all the vast complexity of the multiverse. There is no "evidence" that life on other planets exists. But I draw the conclusion (or have the belief) that somewhere among the multitude of star systems, other intelligent lifeforms exist - although I'm sometimes not really sure intelligent life exists here on Earth (especially in Washington DC). Since there is no evidence to support that belief, is it "by definition" irrational too? If so, then a huge percentage of the scientific community are equally irrational. There is no mandate that a conviction in scientific doctrine in anyway precludes one from belief in (for lack of a better term) God. Of course, those who argue that evolution is patently wrong because the bible says the universe (and man) were created in six days and man was created exactly as he is today are clearly pursuing an unsupportable and illogical track, but that end of the zealotry spectrum isn't what we're talking about. Although it should be noted that those who preach with absolute certainty that "Since I have no positive proof of a God, therefore he/she/it can't possibly exist and anyone who disagrees with me must be stupid, brainwashed, or irrational" are themselves simply operating at the far opposite end of that very same zealotry spectrum - two sides of the same self-righteous coin. As we've already seen from many scientists (including Nobel winners), there is absolutely no conflict in subscribing to cosmological, planetary, and biological evolution and a belief in an underlying creative force/intelligence - actually a belief in the correctness and completness of quantum mechanics seems a far less rational belief. It is therefore neither rare (as we've already seen given the number in the scientific community holding some form of religious following or basic belief in some kind of creative intelligence) nor pathetic for any given person to hold such a view. ----------------------------- After Newton, everyone KNEW with absolute certainty that gravity was a force acting on objects and such force was easily computed via Newtonian mechanics. Hundreds of years later, Einstein showed that gravity was in fact not really an external "force" acting on objects at a distance but rather a direct result of the interaction between matter/energy and the spacetime fabric both producing, and stemming from, localized spatial warping - although some scientists seem to have forgotten this as they postulate quantum gravity, gravitons, and other ways to waste grant money. Those with absolute conviction in the "rightness" of their opinion or point of view - should remember that what science KNOWS with absolute certainty, changes from century to century - often from decade to decade and even year to year.
Hmmm, good question - is YOUR grand super duper unjustified belief that in the vastness of all of existance, there is no God/creative intelligence? Lack of evidence in no way proves non-existance. Hence, your OPINION that no God exists is no more justifiable nor provable than the opinion of those who hold a belief/opinion in a God. To hold the self-righteous view that only YOUR unjustifiable belief is the correct one is itself irrational (at the very least, it's illogical).
yes, of course, i must totally agree with that. ok this is interesting because i, TOO, believe there is probably life all over the universe, although i can't prove it. but before some of you go equaling that to religious faith, i do not say FOR SURE, or that I KNOW 100% there are aliens all over the universe. also, there really are other differences here. as living things on a planet in space, since we're here, why would i not say it can't happen elsewhere. this seems to be different than claiming i know a biblical figure created the universe, yet i can't prove it at all. also, current evidence CONFLICTS with religious beliefs. evolution is a fact, imo, yet people still thump their bibles. when you click on my powers of 10 link, how can the rational opinion be that man has the true explanation in the bible?! i still say it is irrational to believe in the bible (even if lack of evidence does not mean it is 100% false) taking into account what man currently understands. so basically, what i'm saying is, of course lack of evidence does not 100% mean man was not created by a biblical god, but when many other things (evolution) start to indicate it is not so, why insist on that explanation?
I just am tired of this kind of discussion and was showing it in my previous to posts on this thread. Good luck with the discussion.