closer to truth, Cosmos. Consciousness. God ep#106 part3

[Dathinkingman]

if there was a knock down argument on both sides there wont be any debate over this matter. it would have been solved

[heloWelo]

What's wrong with Mystery? If one posits that God exists and has reason enough to do so, the logical thing to do would be to explore the possibilities - the mystery. Afterall, if we have a scientific "mystery", we investigate. The same logic applies to our investigation for God. It would be unscientific to rule out a priori the possibility God.

[gusb232]

@heloWelo 'What's wrong with Mystery? ...It would be unscientific to rule out a priori the possibility God.'

I think what we do in face of mystery is what can be wrong. It would be an argument from ignorance to point to the unknown and say god can or does exist there. I dont think we can rule out all gods or any number of things that may lay beyond our understanding. But so what Science does not say things like we dont know the shape of the universe so we'll say its a cube.

[heloWelo]

@gusb232 - "what we do in face of mystery is what can be wrong" - I agree.

However, science does loosely say things like "let's call it a cube" in order to test a hypothesis. Particularly when it comes to exploring the Cosmos. We then continue to follow the data wherever that may lead. If logic and observation suggests the possibility of God, further investigation is justified and rational.

[gusb232]

@heloWelo '"let's call it a cube" in order to test a hypothesis'

A hypothesis is very far saying somthing is a certainty as many religions proclaim god is.

'If logic and observation suggests the possibility of God'

Yes 'IF' but I dont think there there is good evidence to suggest a god exists, But I dont say this fact rules out the possiblity of a god. It simply does give us reason to support the claim that one does exist. much like a cosmic teapot.

[heloWelo]

@gusb232 - I'm not sure that's added much to the discussion. A hypothesis is a conjecture and not (if I read your meaning correctly) in any way established.

As for a "cosmic teapot", I put this in the same realms as panspermia and the like. Although, in multiverse theory, this in an acceptable hypothesis and following that line of thought ends in absurdity and is irractional.

Rather, the evidence for the existence of God is far more convincing and in a different league, for the rational person

[gusb232]

@heloWelo 'evidence for the existence of God is far more convincing and in a different league, for the rational person'

Well this is now a very different line of argument.

Before you were saying gods existance was still a mystery and since it was possible we cant rule it out so we can believe. In this case god is like the teapot.

If you have convinceding evidence, thats a different story.

I for one am not convinced that a god does, eventhough at one time i tried to keep my faith; i couldnt.

[GodTheHypothesis]

@heloWelo

There's an absolutely key difference between religion and science that you're missing here. Science constantly tries to disprove its own hypothesise by making falsifiable predictions and changing with the evidence. Religion tries to confirm its hypothesis by making rationalisations of things that are already true, immunising itself from disproof. If it acted more like science we might get somewhere!

[mysticalsoulqc]

@heloWelo u are right,and all people that have spoken of god has done so by experience...a good exemple of this is....wen meditating a special technic...the person meditating discovers that energy comes to him wen he needs it..in some difficult postures pain arises,if you persevire energy comes and heals the pain.you actualy feel the chi come and heal you.....this phenomenon is a powerfull revelation that nature or god is always there to heal you...this essence truly feels limiteless & more.

[TheDarkLordLucifer]

This trucker amused himself by running over Christians walking on the roadside. He would swerve to hit them, enjoying the loud "THUD". One day he picked up a hitchhiker. Suddenly the trucker saw a Christian and instinctively swerved to hit him. But then he remembered the hitchhiker & swerved back away, narrowly missing the Christian. But he still heard a "THUD". He turned to the hitchhiker and said, "Sorry, I almost hit that Xtian" The hitchhiker replied "That's OK, I got him with the door!"

[lourak]

Weinberg is most generous in his putting religion on an equal footing with science with respect to the ultimate mystery which they both face. However, when he claims that, due to our inability to articulate the meaning of G-d, we are in no better shape than the scientist - this is where he errs, critically. In fact, even if religion comes up with a G-d that is devoid of particular content - it still wins, as it now knows to Whom (or to what) we must bend the knee.

[gusb232]

@lourak' if religion comes up with a G-d that is devoid of particular content - it still wins, as it now knows to Whom (or to what) we must bend the knee. '

Are you being sarcastic?

[lourak]

@gusb232 Thanks gusb232 for responding. By no means! Granted, we'll have to tweak our concept of G-d just a bit and assume, as I do, that he is omniscient, purposeful and enormously powerful. Hence, the notion of humility may come into play. In my lexicon, "devoid of particular content" - refers to the dogmatic "content" of a particular religion. The validity of particular religions, of course, would have to be affirmed by the same logical methodologies as in other domains of inquiry.

[gusb232]

@lourak

I dont see how someone can make that comment and not see how its self defeating. I want to call Poe here.

Many concepts of god are mutualy exclusive and in contradiction so they cant all win but they can all be wrong.

If I define god as the sum total of human ignorance, does that concept win?

I submit that it is a most humble concept of god as well.

Also I dont believe there is any method of inqiury that can affirms a particular god, they are all equaly unsupported. Whats yours?

[lourak]

@gusb232 PART 1 - Hi again! Let's see now - your first comment seems reasonable enough (that all concepts can't be the winner), but this is not an insurmountable problem, any more than in the case of competing scientific theories. Although scientific theories are always provisional, It is usually the case that one theory is pronounced "the winner".

[gusb232]

@lourak 'part1...theory is pronounced "the winner"

close enough but a theory in science is usually not considered in viable competition with other concepts. I cant think of even one theory that is in serious competition with another. maybe string theory ( but that a misnomer)

please see the defination of theory in the context of science.

[lourak]

@gusb232 I beg to differ! Let's stick with cosmology - I can think, right off the bat, of at least 5 different cosmological models currently in the running, and each having several versions. Will one be "the winner"? Maybe. My point is, that, several theories will "lose" , yet we don't think of pronouncing the scientific enterprise itself as being invalid. Why not give religion the same deal?

[lourak]

@gusb232 PART 2 -  As to your proposition to defineG-d in the way you propose, well, I don't see how this serves to bolster your argument, as such a G-d has no explanatory power in a manner consistent with a G-d posited in a cosmological context (omniscient, omnipotent, etc...).

[gusb232]

@lourak ' as such a G-d has no explanatory power '

I think it can have tremendous explanatory power.

What ever cant be explained because of human ignorance yet is claimed to be explain by a god that would be the god of ignorance explaining somthing.

It would also explain why other god concepts fail, because god is just a sum total of our ignorance.

also watch

'The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker.'

watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM

[lourak]

@gusb232 Part 1 - I will grant you that such a definition of G-d may have some explanatory power, but not much. It's not just that it has weak explanatory power - but that there is little or no evidence to support such a definition. In fact, there is good evidence to the contrary. You might want to google the word evidence, lest you think I use the term to denote empirically derived proof.

[lourak]

@gusb232 Part 2 - As to your version of the "g-d of the gaps argument, I think you are mistaken here as well (this is a common error made by those who worship at the alter of Science). When Theists point to G-d as being the cause or explanation of a given phenomenon, they point to that Being who is the ultimate Source of the phenomenon and the Guarantor of the physical laws that sustain said phenomenon. Science merely explains the "how" of the phenomenon - not the "why".

[lourak]

@gusb232 PART 3 - Finally, as for your claim that there is no methodology that can affirm a particular G-d, well, I don't see at all why this is the case. Am I not free to present evidence and make a determination based on the same type of criterion that I use to make decisions in any other area of inquiry. Look at the evidence, and make your best inferences - in the case of a particular faith tradition, decide whether the pros outweigh the cons and make your commitments accordingly.

[gusb232]

@lourak . 'Am I not free to present evidence and make a determination based on the same type of criterion that I use to make decisions in any other area of inquiry" then in the next sentence you say 'look at the evidence'

Well which is it.

Your saying we should change our standard of evidence to suit the existance of one particular tradtions god claims?

All this seems irrelevant, What god do you believe and why?

thats the question right?

[lourak]

@gusb232 As in my comment above, I request that you do some research on the nature and function of evidence, particularly in scientific contexts. As to your curiosity about which (if any) faith tradition I subscribe to - isn't it a bit besides the point. I am not arguing theologically here - my arguments, mostly, derive from inductive reasoning - just as in science proper. I enjoyed our discussion, but I'm kind of preoccupied right now so I'll let you have the last word. Be well!

[gusb232]

@lourak 'do some research on the nature and function of evidence'

Well I do already have some backround in science. So what do you think I dont understand about the function of evidence : more specifically?

tradition I subscribe to - isn't it a bit besides the point. I am not arguing theologically here .'

Most/ all arguments for god are theological by definition. So your just arguing for a kinda of einsteinian god of sceince

Either way your cliams about what god is are what is the issue

[dgxdl]

Stupid blips and bleeps.