Where can god exist?
Posted on: September 16, 2007 - 7:16am
Offline
Where can god exist?
Where are the gaps in knowledge that hold open the possibility of a god?
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
Anywhere he wants.
Look up pantheism. Or deism.
God is able to exist in empty Folger's cans and unused pneumatic tires.
Pantheism is "god is all". How convient.
Modern day deism incorporates the scientific method.
Where are the gaps in knowledge that allows an elusive god the possibility of existence?
Anywhere the individual believer lacks knowledge. If they don't understand it, they will say goddidit. Even if you are able to prove that goddidn'tdoit, they will resort to godgaveyoutheknowledgetofigureitout. (I used to use this one.)
Sadly this is the most aggravating one. Instead of giving themselves credit for years of hard work and discipline to study or become proficient at something the credit is given to 'god'.
"God made it possible for me to become a doctor."
"God made it possible for me to be a pro football player."
"God made it possible for me to beat the shit out of someone in the boxing ring."
UGH!! People need to take credit for the hard work they do to achieve such things instead of saying, "godgaveyoutheknowledgetofigureitout".
According to scripture he lives up in the clouds. Sadly that was before the invention of the airplane and he got sucked up by a 747. No more god but plenty of godbits littering the ground.
The unfalsifiable, the untestable, the unempirical, the incoherent, and the irrational.
Try the one at the very beginning. You know, the one prior to the big bang.
So, you don't think god made it possible for you to intellectually beat the shit out of someone in a debate about religion? LOL
btw - I said I used to use this one. Now that my black eyes are healing from the beating you gave me, I see that you were right. (j/k)
Oh - HoldMyHand - I meant to add earlier that there is another type of god belief that should not be confused with god of the gaps although it is very similar. I call it 'god of the comfort level' and there are a few members here that believe in it. These are extremely intelligent people that understand there is no god of the gaps but have reached the conclusion that there is something out there greater than they are. No dogma, no doctrine - just a personal belief. I mention this so that you are aware that there is a difference even if they appear similar on the surface.
There is no knowledge that allows for the possiblity of a "god"s existence.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
All depends on the definition. If you worship your cat as a god, well, there it is... licking its godly ass on your couch.
The universe.
*gong*
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there is not an ounce of evidence to support a theological or personal god.
I am open to the possibility of a vague god concept, since we do not know everything about the universe. I find it difficult to define this sort of god and I find it irrelevant in my everyday life. I guess what I am trying to say, is there any logical possibilities for a god concept to exist?
Yes. I see possibilites in Cosmology and Information theory.
That the purpose of life is to percieve the information.
Also with Digital physics
{added link}
I have never seen an ounce of evidence to support a theological or personal god. Further, I have seen quite a bit of evidence against such a thing. Further, the concept of a personal god, invoking the supernatural, is incoherent, so even theologians are beyond their epistemological rights to say anything about such a being.
Some people try to justify some sort of natural super-duper god thingy, but I've never seen them get much past pantheism, which is just atheism with a little glitz on the title. The fact is, in postulating any kind of being that can properly be called god, you must:
1) provide a natural explanation for its existence (what caused it)
2) provide a natural explanation of how intelligence could exist outside of what we know as life (physical entities with hereditary replication, etc...)
3) provide a natural explanation for what this thing does, and how it can be observed and tested.
So far all I've seen from those who would like to postulate a natural god are speculations without any actual science behind them, like saying, "The universe is information, and god is the infinite consciousness that processes that information" or other such nonsense.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Nothing. It is eternal, not everything needs a creation.
Information processing. That is how our brains work. By measuring the inequalities (data). The universe is full of data.
What it does is give rise to matter, for example.
How it can be observed/tested:
Matter is formed through data processing (W bosons are the data for the weak force, for example) tested and confirmed via particle accelerators.
Gives rise to other universes
How it can be observed/tested:
L.I.S.A Sky probe
LHC collider
S.L.O.A.N Sky survey.
Dark matter (There is a theory that dark matter is caused by gravity form other universes leaking into ours)
Do I get a nobel prize?
You would be correct.
Well that's just silly. And it is only encouraging the "god of the gaps" idea that you were originally criticizing.
I might hold the view that a god that can be defined is a god not worth paying much attention to.
Not likely.
You're wrong. God can only exist in Maxwell House cans, not Folger's. Duh.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
BLASPHEMER! Clearly, a schism has occurred. I am of the Orthodox Coffee House (the Percolators), and you are of the Reformed Coffee Movement (Starbuckers).
Good luck finding God in Maxwell House cans. The Book clearly states that: On the Second Day, He looked into His mug and saw there coffee. He drank of it and said that what was in his cup was "the best part of waking up." Nowhere does He say that it is good 'til the last drop.
QED!
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
The gap in the New York skyline.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Thank you!
That was one of the most powerful statements I have seen you make, and you make some pretty powerful ones from time to time.
Captain, until you actually refute any of the numerous posts by me and others who have rendered your silly theory... um... silly, I'm not going to keep going around in circles with you. However, I do thank you for illustrating the silly kind of theory I was talking about so the OP can see it first hand.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Oh that's right cheeky, that is. I like it.
What do you mean "convenient". Because it doesn't fit what ever schema you are groping at doesn't mean you can dismiss it out of hand.
See above comment
Here's the problem. We don't know where the gaps are because if we knew where they were they wouldn't be gaps.
My Artwork
Your kept asking what 'gap' my theory would fill. And I kept answering Quantum Paradoxes.
It is common knowledge that many things, (matter for example) work through principles in data exchange.
So I have no idea how you have such a hard time at this.
How does one arrive at pantheism? How can you test for pantheism? I do not see how pantheism is reonciled with the Big Freeze or Heat Death of the universe. What sort of god would send itself to death? If the universe is oscillatory, then it begs the question on how did god originite.
There's the important question. Let me know if you ever get an answer.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
What existed before the big bang? How did it originate? There is no better answer for this than how did god originate. Time has no meaning before the big band. "Originate" implies causality. Causality requires time. Provide a definition of time that works prior to the big bang.
My Artwork
Your sig needs a re-write.
Premature erection of alleged philosophical problems results in premature ejaculation of stupid ideas.
My Artwork
You don't. You take the data of science (cosmology, evolution etc...) and try to piece it together.
While the science itself is testable, (Big Bang etc..)
The conclusion of God is not.
New universes are being born as we speak.
I am not an expert on the mutli-verse theory, but I thought it was scientific speculation and not a confirmed theory. Even if universes are being born as we speak are there new god being born simultaneously or is it the same god that birthed this universe?
Do the physical laws take on the same parametric values in these new universes?
If it were mine to alter, I would. Alas, I am not presumptuous enough to alter Dawkins. He's written a lot more books than me, and has more letters after his name.
Plus, he's a pretty cool dude, and I wouldn't do that to him.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Betcha i know how this is going to end.
HoldMyHand, you could save yourself and Pineapple some trouble by reading this thread.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Naw. I wouldn't presume to put words in Dawkins mouth, either. But starting any sentence with "premature erection" creates so many rich opportunities for word play that I had to do something.
My Artwork
Yeah, but you didn't think of saying, "creates so many rich opportunities for oral variations."
I would have thought of that.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
No.
And read the thread Hamby linked to
It's the same God. See my other topic about this
Honestly, I have not read your threads. Can you succintly tell me how it is possible for god to exist or have you already redefined your definition to precision?
To let you know, I am a noncognitivist. I have no idea what god means until you define it. Can you define god for me?
Read the links. It should give you some context.
My Artwork
I suspect this will not be well recieved but i shall say it anyhow.
coherence.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
An echo from its future vitality resonated back from here and now across time.
it is coherent. our observed existence is decoherent, thus coherent existence is outside of it.
the best description i have read was written by someone else and not me. it is the ultimate gestalt. a boundless pool of everything energy can be timeless in the sense that it is unified with emerging consciousness, your *coherent* future mind is already echoed within it in your known past.
*coherent in this context is all your potential including that which you will never consciously meet
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Cpt answered this perfectly with the statement that a multiverse is continually sprouting. Why this theory has weight is that no fundamental material of our universe is ever in just one state. maximum entropy is simultaneously an unborn universe and the spaces in between.
aside: if i may be a little controversial here, i like to think that similar to the mythology of angels, we possess wings of superposition, and like Michio Kaku i tend to believe we may one day harness the ability to fly with those wings, away from any impending heat death, as we desire.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
What a loaded question. Why should I accept your fundamental theological assumptions in arguing the nature of God? I mean, you could have gotten over this if you had read some Aquinas and realized that the Orthodox Christian tradition purported an analogical understanding of God, in which God fully inhabits and exceeds all of Creation. And God has to be testable? Findable? Tastable? Why? First of all, if God exceeds our level of being, that is, escaping the fallacy of univocity of being, then there is no basis for these assumptions. Second of all, there is reference to God in an unbroken tradition back to the cross and adequate historical evidence to suggest that Jesus Christ, as a historical figure, did exist. So perhaps the burden of proof lies on you showing that there was not a rupture in the veil between deity and creation with the Christ figure? Or at least proving that science is the God you raise it up to be and something more than a tool. I mean, some of you guys are more dogmatic about this stuff than I am. Seriously. Just let me know when they publish the Gospels of Dawkins and Harris, their intellectual vigor will surely blow my theological assumptions right out the back of my head, hurrah for the inevitability of meta-narratives. Oh wait, I mean of science.