If "God" exists?

seamus · 28-10-2010 10:33AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

How so, love and hate are the cornerstones of our world.

That's not really relevant to his point, it's rhetoric.

The idea of a loving/hating interventionist God is completely at odds with reality because there is zero evidence whatsoever that one exists, in fact all of the evidence points to one not existing. The nature of reality is one such that it doesn't require an interventionist god, regardless of biase, in order to work the way that it does. Adding such a God into the mix just raises more questions than it answers.

I think the problem with asking the "what would God be like" question is that there are a number of inconsistencies when you actually explore the possibilities.

"God" as it is commonly defined, is all-knowing and all-powerful. That seems to be the basic precondition - any less and it's simply nothing more than a very powerful and wise alien. It doesn't necessarily have to love or hate us.

In order to maintain consistency with reality, we must assume that God is not interventionist on a day-to-day basis.

If he is both all-knowing and all-powerful, then one would assume that upon creating the universe, he refrained from taking any further action. Further actions imply that his original action was incomplete or had errors, therefore it is not compatible with being all-knowing and all-powerful.

So now we have a God who created the universe - perhaps created that single point-mass-energy which instantly resulted in a big bang.

The question now is why. If he is all-knowing, then he knew what was going to happen, before it happened. So why bother? It can't be curiosity, it can't be for worship - he's already all-knowing and all-powerful, what could worship possibly give him that he doesn't already have? If he already knows exactly how it starts and how it ends, then why bother? Is he bored? Perhaps, like watching the same movie over-and-over, he does this all the time. But since he's all-powerful, he exists outside of the 4 dimensions of time and space, so the idea of "start" and "end" are meaningless.

If the universe was created as an experiment, then he is not all-knowing, and therefore not God.

And we hit an obvious impasse.

In order for the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful God to be consistent with reality, we have to imagine him setting up dominos in a configuration which he has seen a million times before, knocking them down and then setting them up again, over and over.

Zombrex · 28-10-2010 10:40AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er.. if God exists then he would directly or indirectly be responsible for the good as well as the bad. You could thank him for your ability to enjoy, to love, to relate. He would be the one responsible for beauty (or your ability to consider something beautiful given that you'd likely have a nothing-is-objectively-the-case mindset).

The report into failings of the HSE to deal with years of child abuse in a Roscommon home was published yesterday.

Do you think the children in this family should have been as equally thankful to their abusive parents as angry with them since the parents did occasionally feed them, gave them some where to live, only raping them every few months rather than every day etc? Better than nothing isn't it?

Doesn't really work like that, does it? :rolleyes:

antiskeptic · 28-10-2010 11:26AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think the children in this family should have been as equally thankful to their abusive parents as angry with them since the parents did occasionally feed them, gave them some where to live, only raping them every few months rather than every day etc? Better than nothing isn't it?

So far so Sams sadistic god. Now over to the god also responsible for the parents of children whose parents loved them. What does sam (or you) have to say about that?

Sam Vimes · 28-10-2010 11:37AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

So if someone lives a contented, happy and fulfilling life and dies in pain that renders all the good relatively irrelevant? Or perhaps you're talking about a life of the kind that you yourself are unlikely to experience (in which case I'd ask you to include the millions who live happy fulfilling lives in your assessment)?

Would you describe the people who choose to allow millions of people to die in tragic circumstances that are totally out of their control (but over which we could exercise huge amounts of control) as sadistic too?

When you point to the good and ignore the bad and also when you ask if we are sadistic for "allowing" suffering to happen, you are forgetting that your god is all powerful. Massive numbers of people who dedicated their entire lives to preventing suffering could only make a tiny dent in the amount of suffering in the world. There is simply too much of the type of suffering we can prevent and there are a multitude of types of suffering that we can't prevent no matter how much we would like to (e.g. incurable diseases). There will always be suffering no matter how much humans try to prevent. it.

But god is all powerful, he could eliminate all suffering with a thought. If your god exists then every single instance of suffering that there has ever been happened because your god expressly decided that it would happen. To try to excuse this you have compared the all powerful creator of the universe to tiny powerless human beings and asked if we're sadistic for not dedicating our entire lives to do one trillionth of the amount of good that your god could do with a thought. Anyone who has ever done anything to help someone else is better than your god, because the only reason they needed help was that your god decided to make them suffer.

antiskeptic · 28-10-2010 11:49AM

seamus wrote: »

The idea of a loving/hating interventionist God is completely at odds with reality because there is zero evidence whatsoever that one exists, in fact all of the evidence points to one not existing.

You forgot to add "...as viewed through a perticular philosophical lens as to how one should view and evaluate reality".

The nature of reality is one such that it doesn't require an interventionist god, regardless of biase, in order to work the way that it does. Adding such a God into the mix just raises more questions than it answers.

An erroneous application of Occams Razor. No one can say what is required in order for the universe to operate as it does. If an intervention by God is required to, for example, sustain the laws of nature which sustain so much else then so would it be.

Your best avenue of approach is supposing all the gaps eventually filled. An expression of faith in other words.

I think the problem with asking the "what would God be like" question is that there are a number of inconsistencies when you actually explore the possibilities.

"God" as it is commonly defined, is all-knowing and all-powerful. That seems to be the basic precondition - any less and it's simply nothing more than a very powerful and wise alien.

Agreed.

It doesn't necessarily have to love or hate us.

True.

In order to maintain consistency with reality, we must assume that God is not interventionist on a day-to-day basis.

Why is this? God could be ever at work without it having any effect on the apparent consistancy of reality.

If he is both all-knowing and all-powerful, then one would assume that upon creating the universe, he refrained from taking any further action. Further actions imply that his original action was incomplete or had errors, therefore it is not compatible with being all-knowing and all-powerful.

What's the problem with his original creative action being incomplete and permitting further interaction. I can't see how his allknowing/powerfulness is affected by this.

So now we have a God who created the universe - perhaps created that single point-mass-energy which instantly resulted in a big bang.

The question now is why. If he is all-knowing, then he knew what was going to happen, before it happened.

As with so many avenues of investigation, we appear to run into impregnable mists at the point of furthest reach. Consider your statement: before the creation of time (if time is part of the creation) there is no before/after. And so, the whole frame of reference for your objection evaporates - as you yourself conclude.

But since he's all-powerful, he exists outside of the 4 dimensions of time and space, so the idea of "start" and "end" are meaningless.

Your attempt to corner Gods intent in this fashion is rendered meaningless. It doesn't mean he is not without meaningful to him intent.

If the universe was created as an experiment, then he is not all-knowing, and therefore not God.

Non sequitur. We don't know the nature of Gods all-knowingness. If everything that occurs is determined to occur then there is no experiment about it. If however, his all-knowingness arises from his being present at every point in time to observe what is occurring then there can be experiement. We make our own choices and God is at every point to observe what we do.

Observating what occurs doesn't determine what occurs.

In order for the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful God to be consistent with reality, we have to imagine him setting up dominos in a configuration which he has seen a million times before, knocking them down and then setting them up again, over and over.

See above.

Dades · 28-10-2010 11:54AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

So far so Sams sadistic god. Now over the god also responsible for the parents of children whose parents loved them. What does sam (or you) have to say about that?

I'm a responsible parent and my kids love me.

I'm also happy to credit myself (and my family) rather than a deity I believe doesn't exist.

But similarly I also accredit giant tsunamis to the forces of the natural world (and not a deity), as to not assign blame and credit consistently would be wrong.

antiskeptic · 28-10-2010 12:03PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When you point to the good and ignore the bad

I'm not ignoring the bad. I'm pointing out that your 'sadistic god' ignores the good. And so is incomplete.

and also when you ask if we are sadistic for "allowing" suffering to happen, you are forgetting that your god is all powerful. Massive numbers of people who dedicated their entire lives to preventing suffering could only make a tiny dent in the amount of suffering in the world.

You know that you could ease the agony of many, many people merely by giving up everything bar what you need to sustain you (still in far greater comfort and health than they could ever hope for). You have that power - you don't exercise it. Nor do I.

Leaving semantic wriggling aside, aren't we sadistic by that same measure?

You forget too that all-powerfulness isn't taken to mean God can do simply anything at all. He could resolve all suffering - but could he do that and leave mankind with freewill at the same time? It would seem not. So if you're howling now, just wait for the howls if God actually began implementing your request.

There is simply too much of the type of suffering we can prevent and there are a multitude of types of suffering that we can't prevent no matter how much we would like to (e.g. incurable diseases). There will always be suffering no matter how much humans try to prevent it.

Which is besides the point.

But god is all powerful, he could eliminate all suffering with a thought.If your god exists then every single instance of suffering that there has ever been happened because your god expressly decided that it would happen.

To try to excuse this you have compared the all powerful creator of the universe to tiny powerless human beings and asked if we're sadistic for not dedicating our entire lives to do one trillionth of the amount of good that your god could do with a thought. Anyone who has ever done anything to help someone else is better than your god, because the only reason they needed help was that your god decided to make them suffer.

Leaving aside the problem of goodness, we've got his 'sadistic' element (large scale because he is large scale) and your 'sadistic' element (small scale because you are small scale).

If I put your small pile of rotting meat before a nose, will it smell any worse than Gods large pile of the same substance? I don't think so. You are as omnipotent as God in your own realm.

antiskeptic · 28-10-2010 12:07PM

Dades wrote: »

I'm a responsible parent and my kids love me.
I'm also happy to credit myself (and my family) rather than a deity I believe doesn't exist.

But similarly I also accredit giant tsunamis to the forces of the natural world (and not a deity), as to not assign blame and credit consistently would be wrong.

Better that than Sams conveniently lopsided viewpoint.

seamus · 28-10-2010 12:10PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

An erroneous application of Occams Razor. No one can say what is required in order for the universe to operate as it does. If an intervention by God is required to, for example, sustain the laws of nature which sustain so much else then so would it be.

I addressed this later on. If God needs to continually intervene in his creation, then he cannot be all-powerful, otherwise he would have created it without the need for intervention. Or he's bored an he's intentionally introduced flaws so that he can fix them later on. Doesn't seem logical to me.

Why is this? God could be ever at work without it having any effect on the apparent consistancy of reality.

If you think about this logically, you're saying that the basis of reality is that God is constantly "propping it up" and without this intervention, reality as we know it would collapse. That is, if God stopped intervening, then reality would become inconsistent - things which previously used to happen, would stop happening.
Which goes back to my argument above.

What's the problem with his original creative action being incomplete and permitting further interaction. I can't see how his allknowing/powerfulness is affected by this.

Because what's the point? If it exists outside of time, then "interaction" is irrelevant, there's nothing to be observed, because the very act of observation requires time.

We don't know the nature of Gods all-knowingness.

Actuallym that's an absolute. You're either all-knowing or you're not. There's no "nature" to it. If God doesn't know everything, he's not God. Simple as.

If everything that occurs is determined to occur then there is no experiment about it. If however, his all-knowingness arises from his being present at every point in time to observe what is occurring then there can be experiement. We make our own choices and God is at every point to observe what we do.

But as I point out, observation is meaningless without time. You can't "observe" anything if you can see the start, middle and end all the same time. Observation by definition is watching something over time. From God's point of view, time is meaningless, so there's nothing to observe. At best you could say that he "measures" the whole from start to finish since he is present for it all, but that too precludes that he is attempting to obtain knowledge that he doesn't have.

The very notion of "Free Will" is inconsistent with the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful God. If free will exists, then God cannot be "all-knowing". If God is all-knowing, then we cannot have free will since our actions are already predetermined. You even say this yourself - everything that occurs is determined to occur.
Therefore no free will, therefore no intervention. Which neatly comes back to the start of my point - if God does not intervene and already knows everything, why would he create a universe?

Sam Vimes · 28-10-2010 12:12PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Better that than Sams conveniently lopsided viewpoint.

You're the only one with a lob sided viewpoint mate. You're talking about a god that could eliminate all suffering if he wanted but chooses not to and telling me that I should love him because he allows some good to happen along with the bad. Sorry but I expect more from a supposedly all powerful and all loving being than I do from tiny powerless human beings (apparently unlike you) and considering the relative efforts involved in humans combating suffering and god doing it, we're getting a hell of a lot less.

Sam Vimes · 28-10-2010 12:22PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not ignoring the bad. I'm pointing out that your 'sadistic god' ignores the good. And so is incomplete.

I'm not ignoring the good. The existence of both good and bad is compatible with the idea that there is no god and with the idea that there is a weak or sadistic god but the mere existence of bad is incompatible with an all powerful, all loving being.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You know that you could ease the agony of many, many people merely by giving up everything bar what you need to sustain you (still in far greater comfort and health than they could ever hope for). You have that power - you don't exercise it. Nor do I.

Leaving semantic wriggling aside, aren't we sadistic by that same measure?

You forget too that all-powerfulness isn't taken to mean God can do simply anything at all. He could resolve all suffering - but could he do that and leave mankind with freewill at the same time? It would seem not. So if you're howling now, just wait for the howls if God actually began implementing your request.

I have the power to help a few people with great personal sacrifice. God has the power to help all with no sacrifice whatsoever. You can argue that I don't help people because I'm sadistic or at least selfish but your god is not supposed to possess these characteristics. I could help more people and it is a failing of myself that I don't. But I am not a god and I don't claim to be all loving. Pointing out that I don't meet the standards of an all loving god does not excuse your god for not meeting these standards

And if god can't eliminate suffering and still have free will, then he's not all-powerful. You can't just redefine the term when it becomes clear that the actual meaning of the term is incompatible with your god.

antiskeptic · 28-10-2010 12:25PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're the only one with a lob sided viewpoint mate. You're talking about a god that could eliminate all suffering if he wanted but chooses not to and telling me that I should love him because he allows some good to happen along with the bad.

There would be no 'you' around to love him if he was to resolve all suffering. Resolving all suffering would necessitate tying your will up in chains (given that it's your will which contributes to the suffering).

I'm not positing 'all powerfulness' as being able to give you everything you can possibly think of - no matter how irrational.

antiskeptic · 28-10-2010 12:36PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not ignoring the good. The existence of both good and bad is compatible with the idea that there is no god

Not relevant to our discussion

and with the idea that there is a weak or sadistic god

Now that you're not ignoring the good, where does good fit in with sadism?

but the mere existence of bad is incompatible with an all powerful, all loving being.

But it is compatible with a God who permits a persons expression of will. And is compatible with a God who is wrath against sin. The biblical God not being just about love.

I have the power to help a few people with great personal sacrifice. God has the power to help all with no sacrifice whatsoever. You can argue that I don't help people because I'm sadistic or at least selfish but your god is not supposed to possess these characteristics. I could help more people and it is a failing of myself that I don't. But I am not a god and I don't claim to be all loving. Pointing out that I don't meet the standards of an all loving god does not excuse your god for not meeting these standards

Does that element of wrath introduced above alleviate things at all? It appears to me that you (and so many others here) pick the dimensions of the biblical God that suit your book and ignore plain references to other dimensions that would interfere with the web of disbelief you want to weave for yourself.

Why not fact up to and reject God as described rather than one made in your own design.

And if god can't eliminate suffering and still have free will, then he's not all-powerful. You can't just redefine the term when it becomes clear that the actual meaning of the term is incompatible with your god.

Weak. Your positing all-powerfulness as the ability to create square circles. Such illogic sinks the ship you sail in for it permits a good God to be sadistic.

Zombrex · 28-10-2010 12:39PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

So far so Sams sadistic god.

You missed the point (in some what of an ironic way considered what I just described was your god).

These parents feed these children, gave them a home, provided them with schooling and clothes etc. All these things are good.

They also raped them, beat them, mistreated them. All these things are bad (very bad)

So should these children be equally grateful to the parents for the first set of things as they are angry at the parents for the second set of things? Should these children be grateful these parents did anything for them at all? And should this gratefulness cancel out the atrocities the parents did to these children?

Since when as doing good excused doing bad? Since when did it become unreasonable to expect that someone who is supposed to love you only did good things to you?

antiskeptic wrote: »

What does sam (or you) have to say about that?

I would imagine that Sam would say that simply because someone does something supportive for you doesn't excuse when they do something horrific to you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 28-10-2010 12:48PM

If there was some non-human intelligence responsible for the creation of this universe and I were to think what it might be like, I would probably picture something quite like us.

I picture in my mind research projects like CERN, which essentially create things that never created before. There was even talk that what they created could be “mini” universes.

What they create flashes up and disappears, but what if those universes have time like ours, yet what is a flash to us is the entire expansion and collapse of a universe to them?

It could be therefore that any creator of our universe is not only not a personal and caring god, but may in fact be wholly and entirely unaware that we even exist.

Theists often blag on about how “fine tuned for life” our universe is. This is such a self-centric view as to be comical. The universe is relatively massive and ours is the only life within it that we know of. That all this universe was created to house us in a little corner of it is simply comedy.

In fact if we were to engage in the thus far entirely baseless fantasy that our universe IS fine tuned at all, then it seems fine tuned for many other things which it does a whole lot better than produce life. The most obvious is as a machine for producing Black Holes, a task the universe achieves with remarkable efficiency and frequency.

So what would I imagine god being like if I were to engage in such pointless fantasy? I would picture it as being an industrious scientist conducting experiments and building machines of which we ourselves may be a random, possibly even unknown, by product.

We could be like bacteria on a cheese in the days before the existence of bacteria was known. The cheese had a function to it’s creator, but that creator was wholly unaware of the life existing within it.

robindch · 28-10-2010 12:50PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Resolving all suffering would necessitate tying your will up in chains (given that it's your will which contributes to the suffering).

No more than a doctor ties a patient "up in chains" by asking him to take a course in antibiotics.

Your argument is charmingly nonsensical.

Stercus Accidit · 28-10-2010 12:53PM

Every string or atom in our universe is a piece of information being processed, our universe is a magnificent quantum graphics card, running some beautiful game on hi-res. We were booted into action at the big bang and we will shut down some day, after a furious rage quit...

Sam Vimes · 28-10-2010 12:58PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

There would be no 'you' around to love him if he was to resolve all suffering. Resolving all suffering would necessitate tying your will up in chains (given that it's your will which contributes to the suffering).

I'm not positing 'all powerfulness' as being able to give you everything you can possibly think of - no matter how irrational.

Weak. Your positing all-powerfulness as the ability to create square circles. Such illogic sinks the ship you sail in for it permits a good God to be sadistic.

Yes I know the standard christian argument for why god allows babies to die from horrific deformities and it is as much bullsh!t now as it was the first time it was put forward. Our free will is already limited in myriad ways and if god cannot eliminate suffering without eliminating free will he's not all powerful, simple as that. Even if you could argue that eliminating suffering entirely would eliminate free will, babies being born with deformities has bugger all to do with free will and could be prevented without affecting it at all. I am not positing all-powerfulness to mean the ability to square circles, I am positing it as the ability to prevent motor neuron disease, measles, spina bifida, small pox etc etc etc. Things that we can prevent or alleviate ourselves despite our lack of all powerfulness and that would not affect free will in any way if god took them away

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does that element of wrath introduced above alleviate things at all? It appears to me that you (and so many others here) pick the dimensions of the biblical God that suit your book and ignore plain references to other dimensions that would interfere with the web of disbelief you want to weave for yourself.

Why not fact up to and reject God as described rather than one made in your own design.
...
Now that you're not ignoring the good, where does good fit in with sadism?

It would mean that god is not as sadistic as he could possibly be, just like people who regularly rape their children also feed and clothe them. The existence of some good does not excuse the bad even with flawed human beings, never mind with an all powerful god. Your argument is like a defendant in a murder trial and pointing out all the times that he didn't kill people as if that should excuse the one time he did.

I don't have to ignore good at all to call your god sadistic but you have to come up with pathetic excuses about free will to explain the massive amounts of suffering that he expressly allows, you have to convince yourself that we would be mindless automatons if god prevented schizophrenia, alzheimer's disease and earthquakes. The argument doesn't make any sense

Turtwig · 28-10-2010 12:59PM

I'd say if God exists He's probably nothing like all the religions like to claim He is like. I just hope he is a she, and she is super is sexy. Yeah, I'm that shallow.

gbee · 28-10-2010 01:05PM

Malty_T wrote: »

I'd say if God exists He's probably nothing like all the religions like to claim He is like. I just hope he is a she, and she is super is sexy. Yeah, I'm that shallow.

Don't be. See the odd thing about deities all over the world and from aeons back in time was their love of copulation with us.

Every sect, everywhere has the idea that sex is related to deity. Some religions the dominant being is a male, in others it is female but watch out, in others again it's a cat ~~ youch!

But, your choice is there!

antiskeptic · 28-10-2010 01:18PM

seamus wrote: »

I addressed this later on.

Okay

If God needs to continually intervene in his creation, then he cannot be all-powerful, otherwise he would have created it without the need for intervention.

All powerfulness isn't taken to mean God can create square circles. Similarily, if a creation by definition needs sustaining then sustaining it must have.

Besides, it can be that the creative process is occurring as we speak. You would accept that God need to intervene creatively in order to create?

If you think about this logically, you're saying that the basis of reality is that God is constantly "propping it up" and without this intervention, reality as we know it would collapse. That is, if God stopped intervening, then reality would become inconsistent - things which previously used to happen, would stop happening.

For all we know. You cannot say God is unnecessary because neither you nor anyone else know what's necessary to bring about and sustain a universe

Which goes back to my argument above. Because what's the point? If it exists outside of time, then "interaction" is irrelevant, there's nothing to be observed, because the very act of observation requires time.

Existing outside time doesn't mean that the information contained in the time dimension is inaccessible. It only means that information isn't constrained to being viewed by the rules of the time dimension.

A 2D man encountering a 100m tall sphere on his path might not be able to walk around it so as to find out what's on the other side. However, a creature occupying the 3rd dimension can, in his all-knowingness, tell 2D man precisely what the lay of the land beyond the sphere is whilst 2D man goes off to fetch a ladder. If you insist that the only way to observe what's ahead involves time elapsing (the time it takes to fetch and scale the ladder) then you'd be wrong.

Actually that's an absolute. You're either all-knowing or you're not. There's no "nature" to it. If God doesn't know everything, he's not God. Simple as.

We're agreed on that. But does God know by determining things to be. Or does he know them by observation.

But as I point out, observation is meaningless without time. You can't "observe" anything if you can see the start, middle and end all the same time. Observation by definition is watching something over time.

As suggested, I'm not supposing time completely divorced from God, just God occupying more than the time dimension we occupy.

From God's point of view, time is meaningless, so there's nothing to observe. At best you could say that he "measures" the whole from start to finish since he is present for it all, but that too precludes that he is attempting to obtain knowledge that he doesn't have.

We're restricted in the dimensions we can play with but hopefully the 2D/3D example shows something of what we must consider possible. God only knows what dimensions and dimensional interactions are possible. It is pointless to try to suppose God limited as we are limited

The very notion of "Free Will" is inconsistent with the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful God. If free will exists, then God cannot be "all-knowing". If God is all-knowing, then we cannot have free will since our actions are already predetermined. You even say this yourself - everything that occurs is determined to occur.

I don't say that.

This position rests on God not being able to observe - which has been addressed.

antiskeptic · 28-10-2010 01:20PM

robindch wrote: »

No more than a doctor ties a patient "up in chains" by asking him to take a course in antibiotics.

He'd have to tie the patient up in chains if the patient refuses to take them.

Your argument is charmingly nonsensical.

Non sequitur

Sam Vimes · 28-10-2010 01:25PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

He'd have to tie the patient up in chains if the patient refuses to take them.

So a baby born with a congenital defect that will result in death within hours of his birth has done the equivalent of refusing to take medicine to cure himself has he?

seamus · 28-10-2010 01:37PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

<content>

So to summarise your entire position:
1. God occupies dimensions which we can only move through or can't even perceive
2. Because of this, it is inherently impossible for us to perceive him.

So why perceive him at all? If I cannot know what "God" is, I cannot understand the nature of his existence and I cannot verify his existence why would I believe that he exists?

To use your 2D/3D example, the 2D man is completely incapable of perceiving the 3D person. All he sees is a wall which occupies the same point in 3D space which he does. He can move through 3D space but he does not occupy it. In other words, when he moves from point A to point B, he is now at point B, but he cannot look back at point A, nor can he see or (accurately) reverse his path. All he can perceive is the specific point in 3D space that he now occupies. Much like we cannot look forward into the future nor back into the past, a person who occupies 2D space and moves in the 3D space, cannot see other points in 3D space, they can only move between them.

Therefore as the 3D man occupies an entirely different point in space, he is incapable of communicating with him or perceiving his existence. Therefore the 2D man has no basis on which to suppose that there is a someone nearby, occupying 3 dimensions.

He can "hope" that such a person exists, but that's about it.

Zombrex · 28-10-2010 01:47PM

seamus wrote: »

If I cannot know what "God" is, I cannot understand the nature of his existence and I cannot verify his existence why would I believe that he exists?

+1

The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Des Carter · 28-10-2010 01:48PM

I think we are missing out on a few points.

1. If a God is all-knowing does that mean he can tell the future?
Does he decide the future or just know what the future is?
Does he have a future himself?
I can know everything there is to know about the world/univers/life/death/humans/mathematics/science/religion etc - this would make me all-knowing but I would still be powerless to change or even know the future.

2. God may be all-powerful but does that mean he has to act on it?
Just cause I can do something doesnt mean I will, it might take a lot out of me - same with God destroying all suffering might be possible for God but may have some negative effect on hiim and so he doesnt bother.

3. Why would humans be so important? Why would we be more important than any other life on this planet/universe?
Would he not care about animals, insects and bacteria just as much as us? if he does then he wouldnt want to destroy certain bacteria that spread disease as if he did he would be reducing human suffering but increasing bacteria suffering.

4.Iv heard people say that "people suffer/are evil and if God is all-knowing then he would know we would have turned out this way and done something differently"
Maybe hes not finished yet and by the time life has finished developing/evolving we will be perfect.
If I tell someone Im making a perfect house out of lego and they come in half-way through they can say "thats not perfect" they would be corrcet but I just wasnt finished

gbee · 28-10-2010 01:53PM

If God exists, it's my turn to win the bleedin lottery. Seriously, share me a million among ten others, that'll do nicely.

Or just make all those overdue bills go away ~ poof, gone.

Zombrex · 28-10-2010 01:54PM

Des Carter wrote: »

I think we are missing out on a few points.

1. If a God is all-knowing does that mean he can tell the future?
Does he decide the future or just know what the future is?
Does he have a future himself?
I can know everything there is to know about the world/univers/life/death/humans/mathematics/science/religion etc - this would make me all-knowing but I would still be powerless to change or even know the future.

2. God may be all-powerful but does that mean he has to act on it?
Just cause he can do something doesnt mean I will, it might take a lot out of me - same with God destroying all suffering might be possible for God but may have some negative effect on hiim and so he doesnt bother.

3. Why would humans be so important? Why would we be more important than any other life on this planet/universe?
Would he not care about animals, insects and bacteria just as much as us? if he does then he wouldnt want to destroy certain bacteria that spread disease as if he did he would be reducing human suffering but increasing bacteria suffering.

4.Iv heard people say that "people suffer/are evil and if God is all-knowing then he would know we would have turned out this way and done something differently"
Maybe hes not finished yet and by the time life has finished developing/evolving we will be perfect.
If I tell someone Im making a perfect house out of lego and they come in half-way through they can say "thats not perfect" they would be corrcet but I just wasnt finished

All that makes me thankful I don't believe God exists.

God as a concept is an incoherent mess. It just turns into maybe God wants this X, maybe God needs to do Y, maybe God wants us to do Z. Maybe being the key word.

It is about pleasing what ever a particular human is worried about rather than producing a coherent idea of something that might exist. Which is why theists seem to have such little problem with religion paradoxes (they just dismiss them) and atheists have such a problem with religious paradoxes.

sbsquarepants · 28-10-2010 01:57PM

I once heard this guy on tv argue that it was statisticaly more likely that we (as in the entire world) are more likely to be dead than alive! The argument goes like this, our lifespan is roughly 70 years, the universe is billions of years old, the odds of hitting any particular 70 year segment are extremely remote. He argues, that an extremely advanced race (possibly even ourselves (it gets stranger!), may have recreated the universe inside a super advanced computer, similar to our computer models but in infinitly more detail. Basicaly like the sims!
Now, i can't recall the numbers involved, due to intoxication (which felt very real, i have to admit), but there is only something like a .00000001% chance that we exist at all!
Basically your god is as likely to be a bored 11 year old in the year 7538 as he is a beardy old man from the year 0.

(this makes a lot more sense when stoned, but lets face it, it's no less likely than any given religion)

gbee · 28-10-2010 02:02PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

may have recreated the universe inside a super advanced computer, ---Basically your god is as likely to be a bored 11 year old in the year 7538 as he is a beardy old man from the year 0.

And the more we find out about our universe, the more likely that this is a fact. But it opens even more doors.

If "God" exists?

Comments