As usual, I cannot be arsed to read through 13 pages of what is basically an argument without end. Proof of the existence of God is impossible, for then faith would not be necessary.
I will offer this, which appears in the December 2008 issue of Discover magazine (the one with Stephen Hawking on the cover) on page 56 (this appears as a sidebar to this article: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator/ ) :
Cosmic Coincidences
If these cosmic traits were just slightly altered, life as we know it would be impossible. A few examples:
*Stars like the sun produce energy by fusing two hydrogen atoms into a single helium atom. During that reaction, 0.007 percent of the hydrogen atoms is converted into energy, via Einstein's famous e = mc^2 equation. But if that percentage were, say, 0.006 or 0.008, the universe would be far more hostile to life. The lower number would result in a universe filled only with hydrogen; the higher number would leave a universe with no hydrogen (and therefore no water) and no stars like the sun.
*The early universe was delicately poised between runaway expansion and terminal collapse. Had the universe contained much more matter, additional gravity would have made it implode. If it contained less, the universe would have expanded too quickly for galaxies to form.
*Had matter in the universe been more evenly distributed, it would not have clumped together to form galaxies. Had matter been clumpier, it would have condensed into black holes.
*Atomic nuclei are bound together by the so-called strong force. If that force were slightly more powerful, all the protons in the early universe would have paired off and there would be no hydrogen, which fuels long-lived stars. Water would not exist, nor would any known form of life.
(Follow the link above to the article which gives more examples and goes into more detail concerning the anthropic principle, string theory and the multiverse.)
Originally posted by Suzianne….Cosmic Coincidences
As usual, I cannot be arsed to read through 13 pages of what is basically an argument without end. Proof of the existence of God is impossible, for then faith would not be necessary.
I will offer this, which appears in the December 2008 issue of Discover magazine (the one with Stephen Hawking on the cover) on page 56 (this appears as a sidebar to this a nd goes into more detail concerning the anthropic principle, string theory and the multiverse.)
If these cosmic traits were just slightly altered, life as we know it would be impossible. A few examples: ..…
I am afraid, by using the word “Coincidences” in the above, you are expressing the same kind of logical error here that I see expressed again and again in these forums:
The FACT (which I do not deny nor doubt) that if the cosmic traits were just slightly altered, life as we know it would be impossible, does NOT logically entail any cosmic coincidences!
To explain why, I have recycled the following extract from one of my previous posts:
How do you know that the physical constants are inevitably what they are and couldn’t have been any other set of values thus there is no “coincidence” that they are just right for life (how can it be a “coincidence” if there is no alternative possibility?) and thus there was no “fine tuning” or "adapting" of the physical constants (and other cosmic traits) necessary to make life possible?
Alternatively, IF it is possible for the physical constants to have had completely different values (a big “IF&rdquo😉 then how do you know that there are not an infinite number of universes (because “every possible universe exists” -not saying that is true -its just a hypothesis) each one with a different set of values for its physical constants thus it is inevitable that some have a set just right for life and thus it is inevitable that we live in just such an ideal universe ( else we wouldn’t live in the universe we are in and also we wouldn’t exist to be able to ask ourselves “isn’t it a spectacular absurd coincidence that all the physical constants are just right in our universe to be able for us to live and thus ask ourselves this very same question!!!? )
(either way, no “god” is necessary -not that I am suggesting here that you imply here there is a god)
=====================================
Thirdly, and I think most importantly, you apparently have something against using reason (I presume because reason discredits some of your religious beliefs) else why else would you be saying “why not confront those who use reason to defend reason.”?
=======================================
Can you quote me where I said I had something against using reason?
Did I say reason is useless or should not be used? I did not. I use reason quite a lot. I use reason in my study of God's revelation in the Bible.
I said to the crowd who say "Reason Alone" implying reason is the only means by which man can know truth, to defend that use of reason with reason is a circular argument.
====================================
But, I presume you would claim to use “reason” in your arguments -yes? -else you would be forced to admit you “arguments” are invalid.
If you would claim to use “reason” in your arguments, how do you reconcile this with the fact you are against using reason!!!?
=======================================
Since I never said "Do not use reason ever." I need not defend a false position which you "presume" that I made.
But then I am not of the crowd saying "Reason Alone" or else I would not also speak of Divine Revelation and Faith.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton====================================
….You're simply using a technicality of formal structure as an excuse to EVADE recognizing the circularity of using reason to DEFEND itself.
… (my emphasis)
Firstly, I merely pointed out that your stated question:
…“Now if you are concerned about circular arguments why not confront those who use reason to defend reason.” .…
Is ...[text shortened]... on” in your arguments, how do you reconcile this with the fact you are against using reason!!!?[/b]
Secondly, reason/logic does not ever “require” “defending” providing it is flawless reason/logic -and it can be judged to be “flawless” reason/logic if it is:
1, logically self-consistent (i.e. free of internal contradictions)
===========================================
Everything that is consistent in reasoning may not be true. Consistency in thought does not necessarily lead to truth.
There is a difference in what is possible and what is actual. You cannot always move from thought to reality. The thinkable only involves the realm of the possible and not necessarily the actual.
All that is logically self consitent may be possible in the thought realm but not actual in reality.
==================================
2, consistent with observation and the known evidence
==================================
It should be noted that a materialist Atheist argues for some things for which he has no observed evidence.
For example, that life can come from non-life. And sounding the chorus "But Evolution has nothing to do with the Origin of Life" has no effect on this fact. Whatever OTHER discipline he would like to use as a tool to speak of origin of life it still has never been observed that life could come from non-life.
Yet the Athiest ever so careful to constantly remind us that "Origin of Life has nothing to do with Evolution" certainly doesn't make the problem of life's origin go away by shewing it away from Darwinism.
Reasoning is a wonderful prosess because God made it so. That is admittedly a statement of faith.
The alternative is to hold to another faith, not supported by evidence. That the ability to reason arose from lifeless material without the aid of any intelligent intervention.
The Atheist refuses to recognize that that is a belief of a "faith" with no supporting scientific evidence to confirm it whatsoever.
===================================
3, does not and cannot lead to two or more logically contradictory conclusions when applied to analysing any observations/evidence (whether actual or hypothetical),
-no circular reasoning required there.
do you deny this?
=======================================
Moving from the logically possible and logically consistent to the actual may not be moving to reality.
What is logically inescapable may not be what is real. The rationally inescapable is not of necessity the real.
Logic can eliminate what is false. It can be a negative test for truth. Logic can demonstrate what is possibly real but not what is actually real.
Incidently, this can work against the Theist as well as against the Atheist.
Also there is no logically rationally inescapable way of establishing the first principles of reasoning. Reasoning rests on nondemonstrable and intuitive presuppositions. One must start with some presumed givens to build his reasoning.
Rationalism is without a necessary rational foundation of its own. Its basis is a presumed given. In saying that I use a double edge sword of sorts. That also leads to the the idea that the existene of God cannot be demonstrated with logical necessity. This weakness of rationality, however, does not exclude other tests of truth could be used for the problem of God's existence.
The reasoning methodology that you put your hope in has been used both to attempt to prove Theism as well as Atheism. Any suggestion that Athiest's alone have a copyright on reasoning is arrogance.
Originally posted by jaywill….Everything that is consistent in reasoning may not be true. ..…
[b]====================================
Secondly, reason/logic does not ever “require” “defending” providing it is flawless reason/logic -and it can be judged to be “flawless” reason/logic if it is:
1, logically self-consistent (i.e. free of internal contradictions)
===========================================
Everything that is consistent eism. Any suggestion that Athiest's alone have a copyright on reasoning is arrogance.[/b]
What about mathematical truths? What about mathematical theorems that have been proven mathematically?
Also, when talking about reality, what about probability? (i.e. what is probably true according to reason).
….Consistency in thought does not necessarily lead to truth. …
Yes -but it makes it more probable that it will lead to truth. -Does inconsistency in thought do this!?
…You cannot always move from thought to reality.. .…
-but you often can -so what is your problem? are you saying this because you are against the use of thought (i.e. reason) to judge reality? -if not, what is your motive for you to say this here?
I could say “you cannot always move from blind faith to reality” which is annoyingly an understatement!!!
So if this is your attempt to discredit the use of reason in favour of using blind faith then you have failed.
…The thinkable only involves the realm of the possible and not necessarily the actual. .…
No! the thinkable does NOT only involve “the realm of the possible” but also involves “the realm of the probable” and also involves “the realm of the proven” (such as proven mathematical or scientific theorems).
…All that is logically self consistent may be possible in the thought realm but not actual in reality. .…
That would imply the absurdity that logical self-contradictions could exist in reality! (beause it implies that reality could be something other than logically self-consistent!)
-so, for example, it is both true AND false that we exist! 😛
….It should be noted that a materialist Atheist argues for some things for which he has no observed evidence...…
Yes -that is because often for a given hypothesis X to be credible, all that is required that it should be based on the fact that there is no credible alternative hypothesis that explains the observations/known facts hypothesis X explains that logically contradicts hypothesis X.
Two examples:
1, I observe an avalanche but I didn’t observe what started it.
My hypothesis that I form is that the avalanche was caused directly by something as yet unknown that is not itself an avalanche (because if it was an avalanche that caused it then I could simply define that “earlier” avalanche as being part of and continuous with that “later” avalanche thus, by definition, it is not two separate avalanches but just one avalanche).
This is my hypothesis because I don’t have a credible alternative hypothesis.
2, I observe the existence of all life on Earth but I didn’t observe what started it.
My hypothesis that I form is that life was caused directly by something as yet unknown that is not itself life (because if it was life that caused it then I could simply define that “earlier” life as being part of and continuous with that “later” life thus, by definition, it is not two separate periods of life but just one).
This is my hypothesis because I don’t have a credible alternative hypothesis.
See the similarity of (1) and (2)?
I hope you would agree that hypothesis (1) is not only reasonable but probable?
So can you explain why hypothesis (2) is either NOT reasonable or NOT probable?
(answer -no)
….The Atheist refuses to recognize that that is a belief of a "faith" with no supporting scientific evidence to confirm it whatsoever. .…
Note that what I just said above means that to believe that a hypothesis is correct is not "faith" providing it is based on reason (specifically, the acknowledgement of no credible alternate hypothesis) and you don’t necessarily need supporting scientific evidence to confirm it for it to be based on reason.
-sorry, I have just debunked you assertion.
…Also there is no logically rationally inescapable way of establishing the first principles of reasoning. Reasoning rests on non-demonstrable and intuitive presuppositions.
.…
Which non-demonstrable and intuitive presuppositions? Please give me a list.
I am particularly interested to see you give an example of “non-demonstrable and intuitive presuppositions” used in mathematical proofs (mathematical proofs are an example of applied reason).
Note that what I just said above means that to believe that a hypothesis is correct is not "faith" providing it is based on reason (specifically, the acknowledgement of no credible alternate hypothesis) and you don’t necessarily need supporting scientific evidence to confirm it for it to be based on reason.i don't agree. a hypothesis is not based on reason. reason dictates the usage of only proven arguments or axioms. once you accept something unproven in your thinking to form a hypothesis you have left the logic and ventured into the wishful thinking. as such, claiming there is a god who created the universe is no different than claiming string theory is real.
Originally posted by Zahlanziyet you accept evolutionary hypothesis that life and its diversity originated from non living matter, which by your own definition is nothing more than wishful thinking
i don't agree. a hypothesis is not based on reason. reason dictates the usage of only proven arguments or axioms. once you accept something unproven in your thinking to form a hypothesis you have left the logic and ventured into the wishful thinking. as such, claiming there is a god who created the universe is no different than claiming string theory is real.
======================================
….Everything that is consistent in reasoning may not be true. ..…
What about mathematical truths? What about mathematical theorems that have been proven mathematically?
=======================================
What about them?
"Everything that is consistent in reasoning may not be true" does not necessitate that I refute mathematical theorems which MAY be true which are consistent.
Everything that is consistent in reasoning many not be true, still holds.
======================================
Also, when talking about reality, what about probability? (i.e. what is probably true according to reason).
….Consistency in thought does not necessarily lead to truth. …
Yes -but it makes it more probable that it will lead to truth. -Does inconsistency in thought do this!?
=========================================
One time in the 80s it was pointed out that it is probable, according to an MIT professor, that the Moon does not exist. It is a highly unlikely satalite orbiting our planet. Its proportions to the earth are unusual.
A student friend of mine at MIT said that the professor invoked laughter at his lecture by concluding that for all intents and purposes then the moon does not exist. Of course they laughed because we all know that the Moon does exist.
It is highly improbable something like our moon, as it is, should have come about. It is highly probable that the moon should not exist, yet it does. So high probablity may not be the sole test for truth.
==============================
…You cannot always move from thought to reality.. .…
-but you often can -so what is your problem? are you saying this because you are against the use of thought (i.e. reason) to judge reality? -if not, what is your motive for you to say this here?
=========================================
You always cannot though you sometimes can.
So if that is the case the problem is not mine. The problem is to those who say "Reason Alone" is the only possible means of knowing reality.
The thought then of "only Atheism using its reasoning can tell us of the reality of whether there is God or not" then becomes the problem to that kind of arrogance.
========================================
I could say “you cannot always move from blind faith to reality” which is annoyingly an understatement!!!
==========================================
I don't know what "blind faith" means.
What is it that is "blind" in the phrase "blind faith" ?
The faith that I am familiar with arises from some sort of perception, albeit not from the five physical senses. But a perception to me is a kind of "seeing" and is not "blind".
There is anoher problem. That is the problem of the human will. A person who refuses to perceive may accuse those who are willing to perceive of being "blind". This may not be the believer's blindness but the unbeliever's refusal to perceive.
Since the unbeliever has to have some rational to accomodate his refusal to perceive, he comes up with the false charge of "blind faith" on the part of those willing to perceive.
Some of us perceive that an unusual man Jesus spoke some testable things about knowing Him even though He could not be seen, after His resurrection. Confirmation of those experiences suggest that many of us are on the right track to believe these sayings and experiences are trustworthy. That is not "blind faith".
That is faith reinforced by a certain amount of testable confirmation to the willing.
===================================
So if this is your attempt to discredit the use of reason in favour of using blind faith then you have failed.
=======================================
I do not discredit the use of reasoning. I include the possibility, personality, and power of God in my reasoning process.
To you unless these matters are excluded up front then it is not proper reasoning.
I include in my reasoning process that God may be trying to reach us and communcate with us. You begin, continue, and arrive at the end of your reasoning process excluding any of those assumptions up front. You think it is only the proper use of human reasoning to do so.
=================================
…The thinkable only involves the realm of the possible and not necessarily the actual. .…
No! the thinkable does NOT only involve “the realm of the possible” but also involves “the realm of the probable” and also involves “the realm of the proven” (such as proven mathematical or scientific theorems).
==========================================
If you have a mathematical theorem proving that God did not create life and/or design the intelligence of our minds, publish it. That may be in the realm of the thinkable in its attempt. If it is in the realm of the provable you may demonstrate that Atheism is mathematically provable as well as thinkable.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyes, and then we go in the area Hamilton described: one theory is more logical and probable than another. which is more likely?
yet you accept evolutionary hypothesis that life and its diversity originated from non living matter, which by your own definition is nothing more than wishful thinking
that god created the world in 7 days, a thing that contradicts observations of the world and what we DO know,
or
that evolution happened, more or less how it is described by the current evolution theory, something that doesn't exclude god from existing, or causing it, just that he, if he exists and is responsible for creation, set in motion a process that is self sustaining. Evolution doesn't exclude the fact that god might have given a nudge or two at certain points, nudges we have not observed yet.
a parent is not upset when the child realizes there is no santa. why should god be upset we figured out genesis is mostly a fairy tale?
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton====================================
[b]….Everything that is consistent in reasoning may not be true. ..…
What about mathematical truths? What about mathematical theorems that have been proven mathematically?
Also, when talking about reality, what about probability? (i.e. what is probably true according to reason).
….Consistency in thought does not necessarily lead to sitions” used in mathematical proofs (mathematical proofs are an example of applied reason).
Which non-demonstrable and intuitive presuppositions? Please give me a list.
I am particularly interested to see you give an example of “non-demonstrable and intuitive presuppositions” used in mathematical proofs (mathematical proofs are an example of applied reason).
========================================= [/b]
I am pretty sure that the proof of God's existence or non-existence is not a purely mathematical problem.
The more you complain that mathematical logic is sound and reliable does not mean more abundant proof of God's non-existence is forthcoming by that methodology.
And the scientific method is based on some ideas which cannot themselves be proven by the scientific method. No laboratory experiment can be designed to prove scientifically some of the philosophical givens upon which the scientific method rests.
Here's a practical example:
Stephen Hawking tackles the problem of the beginning of the universe. He came up with a proposal of thinking about "real" time and "imaginary" time. He needed something called "imaginary time" to reason about the explanations for the Big Bang.
What laboratory experiment could be devized to prove the existence of "imaginary time"?
Hawking himself admits that imaginary time is "just a proposal". That means it is a metaphysical proposal which cannot itself be proved to be real by the scientific method. His science then about the Big Bang and the beginning of the universe has some givens and some presumptions which are not themselves subject to the scientific method.
Originally posted by jaywillhe baited you with trying to disprove math. if you would have bitten, we would have closed the door to the mental ward on you. nevermind, moving on.
[b]======================================
….Everything that is consistent in reasoning may not be true. ..…
What about mathematical truths? What about mathematical theorems that have been proven mathematically?
=======================================
What about them?
"Everything that is consistent in reasoning may not be true" does ...[text shortened]... monstrate that Atheism is mathematically provable as well as thinkable.[/b]
"Everything that is consistent in reasoning may not be true"
give an example. you made an affirmation, now prove it. it is not my job to disprove or to prove what you said so don't ask me. you cannot make an assumption and claim it supports your point of view without proving that assumption is true AND it is relevant to your point.
========================================
you failed to see the point. the professor merely pointed out how improbable the moon coming to be was. what the article or the one who related that story failed to mention is that once an event occurs, it collapses the possible outcomes into just one, that which it happened. so while prior to the forming of the moon it was improbable that an object would hit the earth like it did, once that happened, it's probability became 1. so mentioning the moon does not exist is nonsense. perhaps you should realize that many affirmation taken out of context are worthless.
not to mention that your example is pointless. what did you want to demonstrate? that consistency in thought can lead to false results? if you claim that i can prove to you that 4=3. (and i can, with awesome math, but not without being inconsistent at some point)
===============================================
you are arrogant in claiming your god is the real one, AND your god always speaks the truth AND your god will reveal the truth to you. Are you claiming god is bound to this view of yours? is he not allowed to change? if the answer is no, then you are arrogant.
and the thought is not "only atheist with their reasoning can find truth". it should read "anyone can find truth through reasoning"
================================================
perceive what? god is a personal experience that cannot be proven. once could share the experience but each must find it in his/her own way. so how is that logical? i found god and i didn't use any logic, nor do i claim to. and i dare you to prove me wrong. however i would be stone stupid to still use something that is a personal experience, something that i believe, not know it is correct to develop a vaccine. that is the difference between blind faith and logic.
you will never hear a scientist comming up with a drug for children leukemia saying "i have faith it would work, maybe". or a scientist saying "this drug will work because another scientist 4000 years ago told so"
===================================================
like you sometimes, in your reasoning you say "this endeavour shall succeed because of the power of god"?
if god is trying to communicate, how can you hear him? how do you know you understood correctly? do you answer back? How do you know it is god and not the devil? how do you know you aren't being tested?
===================================================
we do not have a mathematical theorem proving or disproving god. if we did, then there would be no reason for faith. if we did have proof of god, only a complete fool would not "believe" in him. but like we have now scientific facts people refuse to believe, i bet so shall we in that case have some dude live on Oprah, sitting next to Jesus, whatching him resurrect a dead person, saying "you god are not real". there will always be stubborn blind people.
faith does not require proof. and is not proven. as such doubt will always eat at faith. God is testing to see how much will your faith be eaten by doubt. but that doesn't mean your faith is automatically true, because of no logical reason at all.
================================================
Originally posted by Zahlanzihamilton smamilton, that bad ol putty cat, the genesis account of days, need not be taken as literal days, for as you are aware there are many connotations of days not necessarily meaning a twenty four hour period, for example the old timers where you live may be heard to say, in my day we didn't have the internet, what are they saying, that their day was a literal period of twenty four hours, no, it simply is with reference to an unspecified duration of time, thus it is the same with the genesis account!
yes, and then we go in the area Hamilton described: one theory is more logical and probable than another. which is more likely?
that god created the world in 7 days, a thing that contradicts observations of the world and what we DO know,
or
that evolution happened, more or less how it is described by the current evolution theory, something that doesn ...[text shortened]... izes there is no santa. why should god be upset we figured out genesis is mostly a fairy tale?
Originally posted by jaywillyes, and as such, hawkings will never invent a machine using "Imaginary time" that works on "imaginary fuel" doing some imaginary results.
[b]====================================
Which non-demonstrable and intuitive presuppositions? Please give me a list.
I am particularly interested to see you give an example of “non-demonstrable and intuitive presuppositions” used in mathematical proofs (mathematical proofs are an example of applied reason).
=========================================[ ...[text shortened]... ns and some presumptions which are not themselves subject to the scientific method.
it is just a proposal. it is not science. it is an idea bouncing around between scientists. maybe someone will pick it up and do something with it. until then no scientist will claim"there is imaginary time. i know there is. i am sure". no real scientist anyway.
you prove our points and you don't even know it. stephen claimed something that is unproven and he signaled it with flares and trumpets "This is not proven, dont start selling imaginary T-shirts just yet". how many biblical scholars do you know that say "we know there was a jericho, but we have not yet found the trumpets used to smack the walls down, they may not be real."?
and there is no proof or god, mathematical or otherwise. god is unprovable. what we can prove and discover are facts about this world.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyeah, yeah, if you would do some research you would realize they cannot be taken as eras either. for one thing, they must have different duration. for another, there are inconsistencies in the order of events. for another, it doesn't say anything about the stars that blew up(the sun is a second generation star btw look it up), etc.
hamilton smamilton, that bad ol putty cat, the genesis account of days, need not be taken as literal days, for as you are aware there are many connotations of days not necessarily meaning a twenty four hour period, for example the old timers where you live may be heard to say, in my day we didn't have the internet, what are they saying, that their da ...[text shortened]... ith reference to an unspecified duration of time, thus it is the same with the genesis account!
the only thing real in genesis might be "in the beginning there was nothing and god was bored". from then on starts the fairy tale, stuff that the ignorant jewish shepherds could actually wrap their minds around. astrophysics and nuclear physics was beyond them at the time.
EDIT: why in the world do creationists keep clinging to genesis i would never know. why is it so important? is it so important for the message? are you in any way more of a christian if you believe it? i am sure god is sitting in heaven,yelling "you morons, that is just the introduction, just skip it and the genocides to the part where i actually tell you brutes love conquers all"