God is not an observable Phenomena

[Valiant Dancer]

On 2001-12-01 07:18, NubiWan wrote:

VD

I made the quote that God was not an observable phenomenon. Theism (God belief) is a philosiphy and, therefore, not a directly observable phenomenon. Attributing a phenomenon to a supreme being requires scientific proof.

Not so certain of that in the first part, and the last part just isn't true. Theism is not a philosophy, it is a religion. What if we were to change the word "observable" to "perceivable?" There are absolutely no restrictions on any assertion me may choose to make. You, in order to accept an assertion, may require scientific proof, not all do. But me being me, won't be confused by facts, and will continue to know, that me is right. And as you must know, acceptance of a 'supreme being,' requires faith in the absence of scientific proof.

Religion is a philosiphy. Constructs of that religion are, in fact, philisophical in nature. What we are talking about is scientific proof of a supreme being. Saying "God made all of this" is a philisopical statement that has no scientific proof. Therefore, not directly observable. For a supreme being to be observable, its effect must be measurable.
God's influence is said to be in all things and mysterious in its form. (Unmeasurable) The provable (a word which I mistakenly left off the original post) attribution of a phenomenon to a supreme being must be backed up with scienfic proof. Faith is a philisophical concept. If we changed the word "observable" to "percievable", the frame of reference shifts to the philisophical and becomes validly provable under philisophical means.

[Valiant Dancer]

On 2001-11-30 16:08, DJ wrote:

I made the quote that God was not an observable phenomenon. Theism (God belief) is a philosiphy and, therefore, not a directly observable phenomenon. Attributing a phenomenon to a supreme being requires scientific proof. If you have it, let's hear it. Although I am a Theist, I do not let my God belief cloud the study of physical science. Your multiple ad-hominem attacks against Theists with other ideas and Atheists are duly noted. So is your miscomprehension of Atheists. What came before the BB is unobservable and therefore out of the pervue of science.

I have read books of historical evidence which indicate God is the reason for everything. Much too large to quote here. I would use those as support of my argument. Please provide your counter, and if you use the big bang, please describe the processes which existed which caused that as well. I need a complete picture.

Please point out what I have missed with my comments as it relates to: a·the·ist (th-st)
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Which books of historical evidence? The Bible, Quran, Book of Shadows, Baglavad Gita, and other "Holy" books are not allowed in your list.

The theory of Creationism is based solely on philosiphy. Since this theory is not valid, then the prevailing theory of BB which is backed up by observations is until someone can prove something better.

Your contention that all Atheists believe in God but choose to deny it is absurd. While they disagree with Theists as to the existance of a supreme being, to paint all of them as at one time being believers is incorrect. I have known several Atheists who have children and are raising them as Atheists. A God belief never was part of their upbringing.

[NubiWan]

VD:
"Religion is a philosiphy. Constructs of that religion are, in fact, philisophical in nature."
Granted, religion is a sub-set of philosophy. Should me say, "I will endeavour to do no harm," is a statement of philisophical intent. If me adds the phrase, "with the help of god," or "the gods," it becomes one of a religious intent IMO.
"What we are talking about is scientific proof of a supreme being. Saying "God made all of this" is a philisopical statement that has no scientific proof."
Precisely so, though me would still prefer the use of "religious statement." We didn't actually see, or observe, god, or the gods, make "all this," but we do see, or observe, "all this." "All this," is measurable, and provable. We put our trust, confidence, conviction, or our faith, into the BBT, that "all this" began with the Big Bang, which we didn't actually see, or observe, either. And should we increase the scale of the universe a magnitude or two, we could say, it was a construct of god, or the gods, that allowed the possiblity for the BB to exist, as a matter of faith.
"The provable attribution of a phenomenon to a supreme being must be backed up with scienfic proof."
Must it? What authority is to enforce this demand? Guess it is the use of "must" in these posts, that me most objects. Had the phrase, say, "to be scienitifically valid," or "for me to accept," been included, would have been content. Isn't science all about drawing distinctions as fine as possible? If me makes the very claim, "God made all this," the proof is, that you and i, are here to see "all this," does science disprove it?
Does.
Does not.

The moon, the stars, all shine so brightly in me little telescope. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] Astronomy is a good thing...

[Mr. X]

Right, *sighs*.

I forgot to mention rutting.

Added due to popular demand.

***sighs***

[DStahl]

Addendum: The whole of my post, below, seems somewhat tangential to the original topic. I'll leave it, set off in an ucky red color, in case anyone wants to comment.

DJ's original question was: "A recent post suggested that God is not an observable Phenomena. I would submit that the owner and those that buy into this type of theory are must be completely sensory deprived."

I submit that the key here is one word: observable. If by that word you mean something can be physically seen, measured, detected, and described in physical terms by anyone with the proper equipment, then I would certainly suggest that we have not observed a god or gods. Here you are talking about consensual reality. If you intend observable to mean something that can be detected emotionally or spiritually, then certainly I could accept that you observe a god or gods. If you feel divinity in all you see, then your second sentence makes sense, but only insofar as all men share your emotional or spiritual observation, because in this case you are talking about non-consensual or individual reality.

I hope that makes sense. It's the only way I could get a grip on the question, anyway.

<font color=#992255>To move a little bit back towards astronomy, or at least cosmology (ahem!): There are various hypotheses put forward by theists which should, sooner or later, become subject to disproof, making them scientifically testable. For example, one hypothesis states that the classical view of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus is fundamentally correct and the reason the electrons don't radiate away energy and spiral into the nucleus is that a Supreme Being constantly pours energy into the Universe in order to maintain it. See Lambert Dolphin's site, and also the footnote at the bottom of this post. I would think that this hypothesis should be testable. (Although whether disproof would be accepted by theists is another matter. Is there any sense in talking about whether the concept of god is disprovable when religious fundamentalists simply deny that their holy books can be falsified in any meaningful way?)

Most of us are, I think, familiar with the concept of a "God of the Gaps," a deity which is proclaimed to exist in the features of the Universe which are least known by science and therefore least subject to disproof. That's interesting to me because I seem to see an historical retreat: mankind's understanding of "where God is" has been pushed from a specific physical place--the topmost celestial sphere, located in the sky above Earth--to an undefined not-space, not-time that exists/existed "outside" the Universe and before/outside the Big Bang, or whichever creation mechanism one proposes. This puts god beyond the reach of science in its current understanding.

Opinion alert! I am not assaulting beliefs here, just stating my personal take on matters.

To me, this retreat seems to support the idea that a god or gods is indeed simply a concept used by some people to fill the gaps in scientific knowledge. I can't forget that only 100 years ago quasars were unknown and the origin of the Universe was a deep mystery, as were the origin of Earth's continents and the details of cellular biochemistry. Our knowledge at the beginning of the 21^st century seems exponentially greater than at the beginning of the 20^th, and god or gods correspondingly more remote and, in my opinion, more unlikely to exist at all.

I recently bought a small book written by Sir Fred Hoyle in 1950 about the then-current knowledge of the Universe. Near the end he gives his opinion on "contemporary religious beliefs." I'd like to quote several pages, but I'll limit myself to a few sentences:

"Here we are in this wholly fantastic Universe with scarcely a clue as to whether our existence has any real significance. No wonder then that many people feel the need for some belief that gives them a sense of security, and no wonder that they become very angry with people like me who say that this security is illusory. But I do not like the situation any better than they do. The difference is that I cannot see how the smallest advantage is to be gained from deceiving myself." (<U>The Nature of the Universe</U>, page 125, Harper & Brothers, 1950)</font>


<Font size=-1>From Lambert Dolphin's site, linked above:

"Barry Setterfield suggests constant energy from the vacuum flows into [every] atom. I would surmise that is a manifestation of God's sustaining power input coming, as it were, "from the other side of the vacuum." In Colossians Chapter One we are shown a picture of the Son of God as upholding the universe moment by moment. The work of creation by God occupied just six days, after which God stopped creating. But He went on to sustain the universe. Colossians 1 and Hebrews One give reason to suppose that the moment-by-moment sustaining of the cosmos involves the input of both force and energy from outside the system, ie., from the spiritual realm in which the material worlds is immersed."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2001-12-05 19:51 ]</font>

[Ducost]

Here's a way to prove/disprove the existance of God. This is not really possible to do, but it might lead others to find a possin=ble way to do it.

Here's my idea. If we had a superpowerful telescope capable, and we had a form of faster than light travel, we could travel several thousand light years away from Earth and look back. We could make a quick stop at 6000 light years and look back, if there was a creation then, we could see it, results there is a god. If not, we travel farther, to see the formation of the sun, if there is a God, we should see him making it. We could travel far enough and look back and see the creation of the universe. We could see the origin and tell if God was there.

Of course the above is impossible, but it is a way to scientifiacally observe God if he exist

[Diogenes]

Of course the above is impossible, but it is a way to scientifiacally observe God if he exist

Abort! Abort! Does not compute! Paradox! Paradox! How Many Angels on the head of a pin?

Everything I say is a Lie. So my last statement is a lie, which means everything I say is the truth, so if it is the truth then it must be a lie, so......................

[Silas]

On 2001-12-06 07:30, Diogenes wrote:
Everything I say is a Lie. So my last statement is a lie, which means everything I say is the truth, so if it is the truth then it must be a lie, so......................

Thanks loads! My computer just exploded in a great whoosh of smoke and sparks. (And it was only a moment away from solving for the "last digit of pi," too!)

Illogical... Illogical... Iloogical... Ish kabibble...

Silas

[Ducost]

[quote]
On 2001-12-06 07:30, Diogenes wrote:

Everything I say is a Lie. So my last statement is a lie, which means everything I say is the truth, so if it is the truth then it must be a lie, so......................

"Everything I say is a Lie" is a lie, but that doesn't mean that "everything I say is the truth" it could simply mean that "somethings I say are a lie" Computed 386

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2001-12-06 10:52, Ducost wrote:
"Everything I say is a Lie" is a lie, but that doesn't mean that "everything I say is the truth" it could simply mean that "somethings I say are a lie"

Got ya there.

It's very easy to come up with an unsolvable paradox, though. Check out this variation on the elementary school word problem:

You have exactly two dollars. Apples cost 25 cents each. You have exactly three dollars. How many apples can you buy?

It's self-contradictory, obviously. The question, and it's setup, make an answer impossible. Less obvious is that the same thing occurs in questions like "Can an omnipotent being make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?"

The answer to that question is, of course, that should be she.

[SeanF]

Grapes,

You don't even need to be that obvious about it.

Is the following statement true or false?
"This statement is false."

Think about that one for a while . . .

[GrapesOfWrath]

But I'm trying to make it obvious.

The point is, we can construct perfectly understandable questions that are inherently self-contradictory--because of the way we construct them, not because of any paradox of logic. Isolating the self-contradiction is where we can make progress.

[The Bad Astronomer]

I think this has strayed far enough from astronomy. This thread is locked.