Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

There are plenty of scientific principles which are unfalsifiable to, ie Copernican principle

I really don't see how it isn't falsifiable...

Even properly basic beliefs are unfalsifiable - hence why we have called them properly basic.

They are the foundation of our belief system. If I attempt to falsify them I will be attacking the very notions I'm using to falsify. It's circular.

 

[Iron]

To topically paraphrase Pilate, what is truth?
Jesus replied that he was…

How can fundamental truth exist without a creator? The only alternative is to view yourself as god, and make your life a struggle to force others to submit to your superiority. Your will to power/dominance/conquest becomes the only meaning to life. A lot of people probably subconsciously understand this, but are too dim to grasp that it requires stepping up and abandoning every conviction other than the conviction that all you want is power for its own sake.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Troll noted, but a part of this sort of idea that pops up a lot I think is fairly interesting:

How can fundamental truth exist without a creator?

Well because there is an objective reality which has truths and we can probably work out what these truths are, but due to the limits of the human mind we just can't ever know that these are the objective truths.

 

[Iron]

Troll noted, but a part of this sort of idea that pops up a lot I think is fairly interesting:


Well because there is an objective reality which has truths and we can probably work out what these truths are, but due to the limits of the human mind we just can't ever know that these are the objective truths.

You misunderestimate. If God does not exist, the entire concept of truth is a religious fraud. There can only be well organised ideas which can always be linguistically undone by other ideas. None of them are of any consequence at all.
Power is.

 

[BradCube]

I really don't see how it isn't falsifiable...

To show that we do occupy a special place in the universe, you would have to be able to show that other galaxies do have different physical laws governing them - this is why it is unfalsifiable. We must make an assumption that we are not in a special place in the universe in order to do science properly. Not sure if I have explained myself properly.

They are the foundation of our belief system. If I attempt to falsify them I will be attacking the very notions I'm using to falsify. It's circular.

That's the whole point. You rely everyday on principles that are unfalsifiable therefore you can't use the argument that you only believe in what is falsifiable - it's too restrictive.

 

[KFunk]

That's the whole point. You rely everyday on principles that are unfalsifiable therefore you can't use the argument that you only believe in what is falsifiable - it's too restrictive.

In a rough sense I agree with this. I discussed earlier (with Kwayera I believe) the issues involved in adhering to a straight out verificationism (/logical positivism) which asserts:

(1) "The only meaningful claims are those which are verifiable or falsifiable."

A possible corollary of this would be:

(2) "It is only reasonable to believe in those claims which are verifiable or whose negation is falsifiable."

But then a problem arises. Neither (1) nor (2) are verifiable/falsifiable, so we need to have at least some beliefs which fall outside the purview of hardline empiricism. How are we then to judge the reasonableness of beliefs falling into this extended realm? This is by no means an easy question, and it is quite possible that no clearly correct answer will be forthcoming (it is partly for this reason that some people are driven to pragmatism - that we should accept those beliefs which prove useful). This issue also borders on the topic of 'properly basic beliefs' that we have dealt with previously because some people think that properly basic beliefs constitute the best starting point. However, even if you can't completely reject unfalsifiable claims on empirical grounds you need a pretty damn good reason to admit it to the a priori knowledge club. If nothing else, Ockham's razor (a long term member, it would seem) does short work with those entities whose existence is unsupported.

 

[veloc1ty]

I've had time to think during my hours of staring at a wall during Easter services, and I was wondering if there is any compelling reasons why morality can't be concieved on an individual basis.

What I mean is, my dad has asked me "what is stopping you from going on a murderous rampage, or stealing things, if you don't believe in a god who provides objective morals?"

Ignoring any evolutionary morality (as that's a debate in itself and unnecessary to make my point), when I was younger I might not have had anything stopping me from doing that, but just because the option is there does not mean I have to take it.

It was just an idle thought but I guess the crux of it is that it's deceptive for someone to say that because you don't believe in god you can go on a killing spree on a whim.


A bit off-topic, but I found it ironic that some of the most questionable readings are said during the masses everyone attends instead of the normal weekly ones where the devoted 10-15% attend and would be more likely to pass it off. The Creation story and such at Christmas, and just yesterday during an Easter service they read out the passage where God is saying he will smite all the firstborn of Egypt and execute judgement against the gods of Egypt, right after they were preaching about his "perfect love". <_<

 

[KFunk]

It was just an idle thought but I guess the crux of it is that it's deceptive for someone to say that because you don't believe in god you can go on a killing spree on a whim.

Agreed. It is also worth asking whether a god does anything more than provide motivation (reward/punishment etc.). Once again stealing a hypothetical from Plato (with a couple alterations): suppose there were a Lydian shepherd who found a ring that rendered him invisible to the eyes of god (/the gods), thus removing the possibility of punishment for immoral actions. What objective/motivating reasons could there be to ensure that the shepherd does not perform any immoral acts? (e.g. he might still people's food and molest some women, or similar). So, just to clarify, the shepherd knows that god exists and is aware of which moral code they favour. Once more, what is stopping the shepherd from performing immoral acts?

What I am getting at is the fact that many would hold that a god does more than provide motivation - that they somehow add something extra, e.g. by making moral claims more clearly true, or by making them unquestionable. If this is the case then what is that extra something? I have already debated much of this with bradcube but it never hurts to bring this stuff up again.

 

[HalcyonSky]

Either an intelligent being put it there (in the same way one may write a novel) or it had a way of naturally arising by itself. If naturally, I'm yet to see a substantial proof of how.

So you preach the irreducable complexity of DNA, why then are millions of babys born each year with heinous genetic mutations like harlequin type ichthyosis (google image search it, ur god must really get a laugh out of some of his creations), why is cancer one of the leading causes of death in humans(is it for the lulz?), and why are you so ignorant as to not even bother reading this explanation of the origins and evolution of dna that was posted earlier by 3unitz

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

In a rough sense I agree with this. I discussed earlier (with Kwayera I believe) the issues involved in adhering to a straight out verificationism (/logical positivism) which asserts:

(1) "The only meaningful claims are those which are verifiable or falsifiable."

A possible corollary of this would be:

(2) "It is only reasonable to believe in those claims which are verifiable or whose negation is falsifiable."

But then a problem arises. Neither (1) nor (2) are verifiable/falsifiable, so we need to have at least some beliefs which fall outside the purview of hardline empiricism. How are we then to judge the reasonableness of beliefs falling into this extended realm? This is by no means an easy question, and it is quite possible that no clearly correct answer will be forthcoming (it is partly for this reason that some people are driven to pragmatism - that we should accept those beliefs which prove useful). This issue also borders on the topic of 'properly basic beliefs' that we have dealt with previously because some people think that properly basic beliefs constitute the best starting point. However, even if you can't completely reject unfalsifiable claims on empirical grounds you need a pretty damn good reason to admit it to the a priori knowledge club. If nothing else, Ockham's razor (a long term member, it would seem) does short work with those entities whose existence is unsupported.

I agree with you

 

[Slidey]

I have to confess that my mind is in a vicious cycle here, just going round and round trying to make sense of what you are saying. On one hand, I agree that it is our meaning ascription that allows us to identify data as information (the same information as found through written works etc). However, I do not see why it is not valid to use this meaning when applied to DNA. Either an intelligent being put it there (in the same way one may write a novel) or it had a way of naturally arising by itself. If naturally, I'm yet to see a substantial proof of how.

Is that the crux of the matter? You've already made up your mind that DNA is by intelligent design and any other theories are false?

It seems that way from my perspective; we've been giving you evidence for the natural evolution of DNA in this thread for something like a month now.

Seems to me like you want it to be intelligent design. *shrug*

 

[KFunk]

I have to confess that my mind is in a vicious cycle here, just going round and round trying to make sense of what you are saying. On one hand, I agree that it is our meaning ascription that allows us to identify data as information (the same information as found through written works etc). However, I do not see why it is not valid to use this meaning when applied to DNA. Either an intelligent being put it there (in the same way one may write a novel) or it had a way of naturally arising by itself. If naturally, I'm yet to see a substantial proof of how.

So I guess I must not be understanding the way you are using Ockham's razor here when there it seems to me that we have no other explanation to fall back upon.

But reiterating the catch once again, the meaning/information is not intrinsic to the DNA. The structure of DNA on which we hang our meaning is, of course, intrinsic but the meaning we lay upon this is not. Humans are exceptionally skilled at finding isomorphisms in their environment, and this is exactly what we find in the case of DNA: a rough structural mapping of DNA onto amino-acids/proteins. There is no abstract/logical feature of the DNA molecule itself which tells us about amino acids and proteins, it is simply that we have learnt that the latter are generated by the former in the right kind of environment and have learnt to 'interpret' DNA in terms of its functional biological products and to translate between the two 'languages'.

We have to be careful, however, not to take the 'language'/'code'/'blueprint' metaphor too far because, at the end of the day, it is we who imbued the molecule with this added meaning (even if it is molecular biological processes that account for why DNA has the structural and chemical features that it does). It is important to note that not all forms of information have to be created by someone intelligent. Take, for example, electromagnetic radiation that we interpret as bearing information about distant galaxies or other stellar objects. There is no space demon out there sending us these coded messages (that is, unless the astrophysicists are keeping me in the dark on this issue). Rather, we have learnt to relate patterns in electromagnetic radiation with certain facts about stellar objects. In this case, as with DNA, it is our human capacity to identify isomorphisms and thus to establish meaningful relationships between different concepts that creates information (that is, of the meaningful sort... the structural aspects will of course remain independent of us).

Does this help you make sense of what I'm trying to say?

 

[advanced sam]

Do you see the wind advanced Sam??

huh??

Wind does not move flag. Mind moves

 

[KFunk]

Zen koan. Logical analysis isn't the be all and end all.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Zen koan. Logical analysis isn't the be all and end all.

I don't even get what you mean. P.S. Know/Understand Zen.

 

[KFunk]

This probably isn't a time to dwell on concrete meanings.

 

[BradCube]

Agreed. It is also worth asking whether a god does anything more than provide motivation (reward/punishment etc.). Once again stealing a hypothetical from Plato (with a couple alterations): suppose there were a Lydian shepherd who found a ring that rendered him invisible to the eyes of god (/the gods), thus removing the possibility of punishment for immoral actions. What objective/motivating reasons could there be to ensure that the shepherd does not perform any immoral acts? (e.g. he might still people's food and molest some women, or similar). So, just to clarify, the shepherd knows that god exists and is aware of which moral code they favour. Once more, what is stopping the shepherd from performing immoral acts?

What I am getting at is the fact that many would hold that a god does more than provide motivation - that they somehow add something extra, e.g. by making moral claims more clearly true, or by making them unquestionable. If this is the case then what is that extra something? I have already debated much of this with bradcube but it never hurts to bring this stuff up again.

I think we're all in agreement that even if you don't believe in objective moral values, you still wouldn't have reason to kill someone. That moral conscience is still pressing upon you even if it has no ultimate meaning. I think what veloc1ty's father may have been getting at is simply how meaningless killing someone is. With no objective moral values, murdering someone is nothing more than an unsociable act - in the same way that wearing something out of fashion may be.

Ascribing it any more meaning than this means that we are pushing it into a realm where objective moral values do exist.

For me the reason not to do wrong is not simply to avoid punishment, it's to maintain a loving relationship by not dishonoring the other party. Certainly, a christian believes that they are already going to heaven and can be forgiven for everything - so why not commit as many immoral acts as they please, be forgiven and then live in everlasting happiness? Two reasons I suppose. The first is simply that I would doubt that the person is a christian for the second reason: they would want to maintain a loving relationship with God where they earnestly want to do what God wants.

 

[BradCube]

its an assumption based on given evidence

Precisely, but it's an unfalsifiable theory either way.

 

[BradCube]

So you preach the irreducable complexity of DNA, why then are millions of babys born each year with heinous genetic mutations like harlequin type ichthyosis (google image search it, ur god must really get a laugh out of some of his creations), why is cancer one of the leading causes of death in humans(is it for the lulz?),

Your point here isn't connected with the questions you are raising. I would think your trying to get back into the suffering debate again?

and why are you so ignorant as to not even bother reading this explanation of the origins and evolution of dna that was posted earlier by 3unitz

It's a pretty long read, but you're correct. I should have has a better attempt at getting through it. I believe this paragraph from the introduction sums up the position we're in quite nicely.

However, trying to find a pathway from the primordial soup of Oparin and Haldane, to the formation of DNA strands is not so easy. Scientists have proposed many theories for the early origins of life-- from Darwin's 'warm little pond' , to the currently popular 'RNA world' . But so far, nobody has described a full set of chemical steps capable of making the jump from chaos to living organisms.

I'm not sure if they just stated this as a way of building anticipation to their explanation, or whether it accurately reflects the state of affairs today. I'm guessing 3unitz, you have read up on the whole thing, would you be able to elaborate for me?

Also HalcyonSky, Ad hominem.

 

[BradCube]

Is that the crux of the matter? You've already made up your mind that DNA is by intelligent design and any other theories are false?

It seems that way from my perspective; we've been giving you evidence for the natural evolution of DNA in this thread for something like a month now.

I'm guessing by month your exaggerating and referring to the week of discussion we've had on this topic? Either way, I'm not trying to put myself in a position where I deem every other answer as false. It's just that as of yet, I haven't found reasoning enough to change my current thoughts - this could very well simply be because I haven't had enough time to get through the information and links people have posted.

Seems to me like you want it to be intelligent design. *shrug*

Can't deny that. We all come to the table with our own bias but I try not to let this get in the way of reasonable and logical debates.