What if God is a provable phenomenon?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2014, 04:42 PM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
Everyone stole my reply. That's what I get for having dinner.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like WillHopp's post
16-01-2014, 07:49 PM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 03:59 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  So, if the question is "How/why does reality exist?" the existence of a creator God (intelligent design) is a theory answering that question. That's the reason why I think scientists would care about proving or disproving the existence of God.

We should also strongly consider the possibility of fleems. Fleems are an invisible, intangible particle that I just invented (well, that's not quite true. I actually invented them over on Worthy Christian Forums a few months ago, but that's beside the point).

Fleems are eternal and timeless, and they form the basis of all of existence. Our universe was caused by their presence. They themselves have no cause because they're eternal. Most importantly, you and nobody else can prove that they don't exist.

So, now we need to seriously devote real time and resources into discussing fleems...

...or we could just let science deal with the falsifiable, testable stuff, and leave all the non-falsifiable hypotheticals outside the door. That might save us some time and money.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RobbyPants's post
17-01-2014, 09:52 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 09:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 09:13 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  I was listening to the end of Seth's audiobook "Deconverted" today and had an interesting thought. I had an enjoyable, mentally stimulating discussion with the users of this forum yesterday, so I thought that I'd throw it out there and see the atheist perspective on it.

When I was listening to Seth, he frequently uses mocking terms to refer to God such as "a magic man in the sky" or a "space wizard" and then contrasts it with the age of reason and enlightenment in which we live today with our many technological achievements. It occurred to me that many of our current accepted scientific theories would have been fluffed off in a similar manner many years ago.

Imagine a scientist in the middle ages trying to convince his brethren that all matter is made up of atomic particles, or describing the idea of radiowaves. The ideas at the time would be unprovable based on current science, and the scientific community likely would have fluffed the scientist off as believing in "magic". There are many levels of scientific discovery that would be necessary to prove either theory, but we know now that both theories are be sound.

So, that brings me to my question:

What if God is a provable phenomenon, but science just hasn't developed to the point that it can prove it?

First of all, I must use a disclaimer, for the purpose of this discussion I use God in the broadest sense ie. the ever-existent creator of the universe, not a particular God of any religion and not necessarily a God who gives a crap what goes on with humankind

So, why is the concept of the existence of a God rejected outright by atheists instead of treated in the same manner as atomic theory or radiowaves should have been treated by scientists if it were thought of in the middle ages: as a theory which explains and fits the current evidence, but which science does not have the current capability to prove or disprove? Considering the amazing advancements that science has made in the last 50 years or so, who's to say the capabilities that science will have in 100 years or 1000 years...who is to say that the ability to prove the existence of God isn't just a matter of time?

You are mischaracterizing the position of most atheists here.

I do not have a belief in any gods since there is no evidence of any gods.
I make no assertion about the possibility of the existence of a god.

I am an agnostic atheist as that is the intellectually honest position.

lookingforanswers
I would also classify myself as Chaos does an "agnostic atheist" for the way you describe God in the general sense i.e there is no evidence for such a God and therefore I lack belief. Your description of God is not dogmatic on attributes or religion and has quite flexible interpretation.

I don't know absolutely such a God does not exist.
(sometimes called "weak atheism") i.e epistemologically I am agnostic (I have no knowledge of such a god) and belief wise I am atheist (I lack belief in such a god as I lack belief in unicorns and fairies)

However: I would be a strong "positive" atheist *Knowing* Christianity is false and Jesus is not a god. This is due to internal contradictions and some outright irrationality within Christianity - in order to belief such a deity I would have to abandon all logic, reasoning and it makes no sense to do that.

My point is you can be agnostic or weak atheist to some concepts of God and strongly atheistic positively knowing other concepts of God are completely irrational.
See my threads on "what is sacrifice" for more details on some of the extremely irrational ideas in Christianity.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 10:01 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 09:25 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  From what I know, god is a fascist.

So as a proud citizen of a Republic, I would go into resistance to his claim to power, even should he show himself.

For many concepts of God found in Islam & Christianity I would agree and join your republic (Follow John Locks principle "right of revolution".
Not all concepts of God are fascist but the type of personal God which requires praises and threatens people with eternal hell fire just for not believing in Him are certainly examples of the fascistic parasitic dictator God.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 10:17 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 09:30 AM)sporehux Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 09:13 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  .

So, why is the concept of the existence of a God rejected outright by atheists instead of treated in the same manner as atomic theory or radiowaves ?
Because its 100% proven and accepted by theists and atheist alike that human cultures invent Gods.
And Atomotic theory and radiowaves are testable and falsifiable.

Your comparing Astronomy with Astrology .

Yes, quite rightly a scientific theory should be testable & falsifiable - at least in principle. What would be a way of testing the "God phenomenon" and what would be a way to falsify it ?
Of course many religions say you are forbidden to "test God" (especially in Christianity & Islam) - such statements are instant red flags ! Religious rhetoric to keep people from being forbidden to think.

Instant red flags !:excl: (very anti-scientific and anti philosophical thought police)
Quote:Deuteronomy 6:16
You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah.

Isaiah 7:12 ESV / 9 helpful votes
Quote:But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.”

Quote:Hebrews 11:1-40
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.

Quote:Luke 4:9-12
And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written, “‘He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,’ and “‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”
And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Also in the Quran it is God who tests us - we are not allowed to test God.

Basically this makes your example lookingforanswers with radio waves or atoms completely irrelevant. Just imagine what it would be like IF YOU ARE FORBIDDEN TO TEST FOR RADIO WAVES OR ATOMS !!!
Hence rationality is the exact opposite of any faith based theism.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 10:19 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(17-01-2014 10:17 AM)Baruch Wrote:  we are not allowed to test God.


Which I personally find very ironic.
Go figure.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
17-01-2014, 10:25 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 10:33 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No "god' (whatever that means) is "provable". Even if it were true, what is "logically provable" to human brains is not how Reality, at it's most fundamental level, works, and THAT has been demonstrated. (Relativity, Uncertainty, the tensors of Dirac). Read my post on your other thread.
Is the Double Slit experiment "logical" ? No. Is the fact that time is relative to speed "logical" ? No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

The double split experiment may be logical or that time relative to speed, these are counterintuitive but logical and follow some precise testable mathematics.
You cannot contrast this with God !
You can still argue that reality as a whole (all that exists) is not knowable by one of its parts (us) and as Kant argued the numena "ultimate essence of what things really are" is out of reach to our perceptions. According to this we would have to be agnostics about God because we can never know (in principle we can have no access to such knowledge and must remain silent about it (kind of a wittgensteinian interpretation).

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 10:57 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
If we are not allowed to test God, he should not be allowed to judge us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
17-01-2014, 11:12 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(17-01-2014 09:52 AM)Baruch Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 09:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are mischaracterizing the position of most atheists here.

I do not have a belief in any gods since there is no evidence of any gods.
I make no assertion about the possibility of the existence of a god.

I am an agnostic atheist as that is the intellectually honest position.

lookingforanswers
I would also classify myself as Chaos does an "agnostic atheist" for the way you describe God in the general sense i.e there is no evidence for such a God and therefore I lack belief. Your description of God is not dogmatic on attributes or religion and has quite flexible interpretation.

I don't know absolutely such a God does not exist.
(sometimes called "weak atheism") i.e epistemologically I am agnostic (I have no knowledge of such a god) and belief wise I am atheist (I lack belief in such a god as I lack belief in unicorns and fairies)

However: I would be a strong "positive" atheist *Knowing* Christianity is false and Jesus is not a god. This is due to internal contradictions and some outright irrationality within Christianity - in order to belief such a deity I would have to abandon all logic, reasoning and it makes no sense to do that.

My point is you can be agnostic or weak atheist to some concepts of God and strongly atheistic positively knowing other concepts of God are completely irrational.
See my threads on "what is sacrifice" for more details on some of the extremely irrational ideas in Christianity.

Have I got a new nickname? Consider

Chaos - I kind of like it.Big Grin

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-01-2014, 11:13 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 09:13 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  I was listening to the end of Seth's audiobook "Deconverted" today and had an interesting thought. I had an enjoyable, mentally stimulating discussion with the users of this forum yesterday, so I thought that I'd throw it out there and see the atheist perspective on it.

When I was listening to Seth, he frequently uses mocking terms to refer to God such as "a magic man in the sky" or a "space wizard" and then contrasts it with the age of reason and enlightenment in which we live today with our many technological achievements. It occurred to me that many of our current accepted scientific theories would have been fluffed off in a similar manner many years ago.

Imagine a scientist in the middle ages trying to convince his brethren that all matter is made up of atomic particles, or describing the idea of radiowaves. The ideas at the time would be unprovable based on current science, and the scientific community likely would have fluffed the scientist off as believing in "magic". There are many levels of scientific discovery that would be necessary to prove either theory, but we know now that both theories are be sound.

So, that brings me to my question:

What if God is a provable phenomenon, but science just hasn't developed to the point that it can prove it?

First of all, I must use a disclaimer, for the purpose of this discussion I use God in the broadest sense ie. the ever-existent creator of the universe, not a particular God of any religion and not necessarily a God who gives a crap what goes on with humankind

So, why is the concept of the existence of a God rejected outright by atheists instead of treated in the same manner as atomic theory or radiowaves should have been treated by scientists if it were thought of in the middle ages: as a theory which explains and fits the current evidence, but which science does not have the current capability to prove or disprove? Considering the amazing advancements that science has made in the last 50 years or so, who's to say the capabilities that science will have in 100 years or 1000 years...who is to say that the ability to prove the existence of God isn't just a matter of time?

I must step in from an igtheist point of view here.

What is God? If you don't first define what it is, you can neither prove nor disprove it.

If a god or God is something that is necessarily supernatural, or outside of nature, then we cannot prove nor disprove it. I could argue there is no reason to believe in something which is by its own definition incoherent using the laws of logic, but still that does not prove nor disprove it. If God is something that isn't supernatural, but is a creator of everything then you must stipulate either it is illogical that God created him/her/itself or stipulate that God is a unnecessary and likely false possibility if things can create themselves. The simplest equation is the most likely correct one. If God is neither the creator of everything, nor supernatural then by what definition is he/she/it God? Why not just call he/she/it something in terms which are clearly defined? For example, extra terrestrial being with power beyond our own, or human with so-far unexplained abilities.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: