Science and God (One and the same?)

Quoting unkn0wnx,

By that argument everything is nonsense. The universe simply exist because it exist is nonsesense. And no inteligent design is nonsense; it can't just appear out of nowhere. Therefore we are back to where we started. Maybe its just finite beings trying to understand infinite universe. If you can accept that the universe always existed why can there not be a creator who always existed? And by having no proof, the lines between science, science-fiction and religion seem to merge. At any rate its pointless.

We can't prove and we can't disapprove, but we somehow know.....

Happy Easter anyway.

Exactly! I was simply making a point that you can't logically argue religion. If one person believes that God just is, then why can't another believe the same for the universe? One person can believe that the universe is full of random coincidences and another can believe in intelligent design, but neither can be proven, nor disproven.

Ultimately the answer to either doesn't really matter. It doesn't change the way people should behave.

If I find a watch I know it exists, but I can only fathom the existence of its creator / owner. In the end, I've found a watch and some questions. I know the universe exists because it is a tangible thing, but there is no way to determine if there is a creator.

Note: Basically I'm just pointing out a logical paradox.

More Stuff: I'm a programmer, so I'm a little inclined to see the universe from a similiar perspective. I see it like this: If I were God, the universe would be designed in a way that it is self-sufficient and does not require my intervention, except to fix the occassional bug. Ultimately the universe would be a set of algorithms and logic that define how things work and provide limitations for various things. People, are simply actors within the program, but they follow no strict lines. They are self-sufficent and capable of reprogramming / modifying their own A.I. Thus, intelligent design exists, people maintain their freedoms, and science has its logical basis.

Woops... forums bugged on me and my post wasn't showing... so I tried a refresh and then a repost.

And most scientist believe that there is a date that the universe was created. So so much for that theory.

Quoting Daikaze,

reply 1

More Stuff: I'm a programmer, so I'm a little inclined to see the universe from a similiar perspective. I see it like this: If I were God, the universe would be designed in a way that it is self-sufficient and does not require my intervention, except to fix the occassional bug. Ultimately the universe would be a set of algorithms and logic that define how things work and provide limitations for various things. People, are simply actors within the program, but they follow no strict lines. They are self-sufficent and capable of reprogramming / modifying their own A.I. Thus, intelligent design exists, people maintain their freedoms, and science has its logical basis.

I like that view; very logical.

I am majoring in the physics field (electromagnetics). But what I find interesting

is that many scientists from all the feilds of science still believe in god.

This may sound strange to some people, but even in the science field, it's

impossible to describe certain aspects of the universe. Just watch a video

on how a cell works, its so amazingly complex, yet we have several trillion of

these wonderous machines that make up our bodies. But how did these cells

get made? When did several of these different cells decide to work together, and

make a macroscopic organism? It's impossible to explain.

We don't even know when, or how the universe was made. I know pople keep

referring to the "big bang", but we still have no idea what caused it, or how energy

was created (remember, it cant be created or destroyed!), etc.

In my opinion, god made the universe, gave it certain rules that it had to follow, and

then left. We are just discovering the rules that god used to create the universe.

(if you look into string theory, there is a chance that many other universes exist, all following

there own cosmic rules).

The fact is, you have to be careful with both faith and science. Because, both are two different

ways of trying to understand a universe, a universe we know nothing about. It is easy to become

ignorent on both sides of the isle. The fact is, there is a reason humans exist having both faith, and

science. It's simply because we can reap the benefits with both, rather then just one or the other

(think about this).

Quoting Tal_Shiar_5,

reply 5

When did several of these different cells decide to work together, and

make a macroscopic organism? It's impossible to explain.

It's not impossible to explain at all. It's quite well explained in evolutionary theory.

I think it goes against the rules to have topics on religion.

https://forums.demigodthegame.com/132685

Except for the fact that this Off Topic forum, which *used* to be exclusive to Stardock game sites, is now accessible on Joe Loser. So there is no point in moving the conversation, it's already there.

\

It's not impossible to explain at all. It's quite well explained in evolutionary theory.

True . Still, there are many questions. Like when did simple compounds come together to make

the first cell? There are so many questions, yet so few answers .

Yep, Kryo outlines the rules here.

OTF Political, Religious and Inflammatory Threads

Which may mean there is an appropiate thread at JL for this discussion.

Interesting topic tbh.

First of all,

By this same logic we can assume that God was created by a higher being

Thats a contradiction. The definition of God is the perfect "being". You cant have something that is more than perfect. God is the highest "being", anything higher then him is God.

And to the people who dont believe in God, you worked this out by logic? I think logic is very unreliable in itself. Example on how to prove God's existence with logic:

Definition of God: That than which nothing greater can be concieved".
Step 1: Imagine God
Step 2: God exists in the mind
Step 3: Something that exists in the mind AND reality, is greater then something that exists ONLY in the mind.
Step 4: Therefore if God is to be "something that nothing greater can be concieved of". he must exist in the mind and reality. If he only existed in the mind, then you could imagine something even greater - a God that existed in the mind AND reality. That contradicts the definiton of God.
Step 5: Therefore God exists.

The purest form of logic in five steps, explain right above

Note: You must agree with the definition of God above if this theory is to be valid. Most people who agree that is the definition of God.

Quoting unkn0wnx,

reply 3

And most scientist believe that there is a date that the universe was created. So so much for that theory.

No, most scientists believe there is a date at which the Universe began it's current state of existance.

Quoting DalzK,

reply 10

And to the people who dont believe in God, you worked this out by logic? I think logic is very unreliable in itself. Example on how to prove God's existence with logic:

Definition of God: That than which nothing greater can be concieved".
Step 1: Imagine God
Step 2: God exists in the mind
Step 3: Something that exists in the mind AND reality, is greater then something that exists ONLY in the mind.
Step 4: Therefore if God is to be "something that nothing greater can be concieved of". he must exist in the mind and reality. If he only existed in the mind, then you could imagine something even greater - a God that existed in the mind AND reality. That contradicts the definiton of God.
Step 5: Therefore God exists.

The purest form of logic in five steps, explain right above

Note: You must agree with the definition of God above if this theory is to be valid. Most people who agree that is the definition of God.

If you don't see the gaping holes in that 'logic', then I don't know what to say...

Please point out the gaps.
Philosophers have been trying for hundreds of years and failed.

Actually Coelocanth, that argument is logical. Ask any phylosophy

professor. It's hard to explain, but mental beliefes can also be interpreted

as reality. These step helps set up a mental belief, which can be interpreted as

reality, and thus it is logical.

Coelcanth, its called the Ontological Arugment btw

Quoting DalzK,

reply 13

If you don't see the gaping holes in that 'logic', then I don't know what to say...
Please point out the gaps.
Philosophers have been trying for hundreds of years and failed.

Actually if you look up "Ontological Argument" on wikipedia you will see that nearly all modern day philosophers find the original argument you posted (Anselm's) to be invalid. There are a few people going through linguistic contortions to try to make a new version of it, but so far they have been shot down by other philosophers as well.

Anyway, there are several flaws, first, in the premises:

"That which than nothing greater" - the word "greater" is a loaded term. What's great for you may not be great for me. In fact, I'd say the word "great" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. When I imagine the "greatest" sandwich that can be conceived of, it's probably very different than the "greatest" sandwich you would imagine.

1) Imagine God. - It's not actually possible to imagine God, since no one has any idea what they're talking about when they use that word and there's no actual definitive version of God, and no way to know if what you're imagining is God or not. I could imagine a ham sandwich and claim that I'm imagining God. But is that true? How do I know that what I'm imagining is the "greatest" thing, or even great at all? It's clear that Frosted Flakes are grrreat, but with other things, their level of greatness is questionable.

2) "It's greater to exist physically than just in the mind" - says who? Again, this is opinion and usage of the weasel-word "great". But let's say we accept this argument; it doesn't really matter that much.

3) "Therefore God must exist" - this is the logical fallacy, the "base assertion" fallacy I believe it's called. The only thing you can actually prove with the above two things would be something like "Therefore, the definition of God would include him actually existing." The only reason you'd conclude that he ACTUALLY exists is if you assumed that your definition at the beginning was describing something that actually exists, and that's begging the question. For example, if I said "The definition of 'Dream Angelina Jolie' is that she's a clone of Angelina Jolie but she is also my girlfriend." and "In order to be my girlfriend, she'd have to exist", it (unfortunately) does not prove "Therefore, Dream Angelina Jolie exists and is my girlfriend." The only thing it proves is "Therefore, the definition of Dream Angelina Jolie would have to include existence as one of her traits".

It's clear that Frosted Flakes are grrreat

[/thread]

For what it's worth, I read the ontological argument, or at least this thread's phrasing of it, as a logical proof that you can't prove that God exists since it (supposedly) uses logic to prove that he in fact does, and as an extension of that, that in some things logic need not apply for the job-which I understood to be the original intent of DalzK's post.

3) "Therefore God must exist" - this is the logical fallacy, the "base assertion" fallacy I believe it's called. The only thing you can actually prove with the above two things would be something like "Therefore, the definition of God would include him actually existing." The only reason you'd conclude that he ACTUALLY exists is if you assumed that your definition at the beginning was describing something that actually exists, and that's begging the question. For example, if I said "The definition of 'Dream Angelina Jolie' is that she's a clone of Angelina Jolie but she is also my girlfriend." and "In order to be my girlfriend, she'd have to exist", it (unfortunately) does not prove "Therefore, Dream Angelina Jolie exists and is my girlfriend." The only thing it proves is "Therefore, the definition of Dream Angelina Jolie would have to include existence as one of her traits".

Thats why I said the following in my post:

Note: You must agree with the definition of God above if this theory is to be valid. Most people who agree that is the definition of God.

"That which than nothing greater" - the word "greater" is a loaded term. What's great for you may not be great for me. In fact, I'd say the word "great" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. When I imagine the "greatest" sandwich that can be conceived of, it's probably very different than the "greatest" sandwich you would imagine.

Yes its a hard word to define, buts its meaning is really quite accepted by everyone. For example, we all know what Hate and Love is, but how can we define it? Just because its hard to define it doesnt make it invalid. Great can be subjective in certain circumanstances (e.g. whats the greatest sandwhich) but in the Onotlogical argument context, its not really.

1) Imagine God. - It's not actually possible to imagine God, since no one has any idea what they're talking about when they use that word and there's no actual definitive version of God, and no way to know if what you're imagining is God or not. I could imagine a ham sandwich and claim that I'm imagining God. But is that true? How do I know that what I'm imagining is the "greatest" thing, or even great at all? It's clear that Frosted Flakes are grrreat, but with other things, their level of greatness is questionable.

You can "imagine God". You just cant imagine A LOT of his qualities (if not all) as they are out of our world/experience. I can tell you now that I am imagining him now - for a fact. Although I cant actually know for sure a lot of things about him, i can still "imagine" him.

Still, if you disagree with my points above, just replace the step "Imagine God" with "Imagine Something" and "God exists in the mind only" and "Something exists in the mind only" and the argument will still work.

2) "It's greater to exist physically than just in the mind" - says who? Again, this is opinion and usage of the weasel-word "great". But let's say we accept this argument; it doesn't really matter that much.

Would you rather exist in the mind only, or in the mind and reality?

And I never said "it's greater to exist physically than just in the mind". I said "its greater to exist physically AND in the mind than just the mind". Its generally accepted that this is the case, however the majority of people would agree that its greater to exist in both than just one. And with God specifically, a God that existed in the mind and reality would be superior and have more control than the God that just existed in the mind (which is the point of the argument).

We can embrace love; it's not too late.
Why do we sleep, instead, with hate?
Belief requires no suspension
to see that Hell is our invention.
We make Hell real; we stoke its fires.
And in its flames our hope expires.
Heaven, too, is merely our creation.
We can grant ourselves our own salvation.
All that's required is imagination.

-The Book of Counted Sorrows,Dean Koontz

Anyone looking for reading material in this subject I highly recommend Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by physists Stephen M. Barr. Its a look at the conflict between materialist (Believes nothing exists but matter) and reliegion. He examines what he calls five plot twists, which includes the big bang, anthropic coinsidences, and studies on the humna mind.

For what it's worth, I read the ontological argument, or at least this thread's phrasing of it, as a logical proof that you can't prove that God exists since it (supposedly) uses logic to prove that he in fact does, and as an extension of that, that in some things logic need not apply for the job-which I understood to be the original intent of DalzK's post.

Bingo.

My point of the Ontological Argument is that it uses only Logic. And my point was that Logic fails on many levels. And so using Logic to dissprove God isnt really that viable.

And to the people who dont believe in God, you worked this out by logic? I think logic is very unreliable in itself. Example on how to prove God's existence with logic:
Insert Ontological Argument Here

Bingo.

My point of the Ontological Argument is that it uses only Logic. And my point was that Logic fails on many levels. And so using Logic to dissprove God isnt really that viable.

Except that logic does not fail. Everything can be proved by logic: that's what science is. The use of logical reasoning to confirm or deny potential hypotheses. There are ways to not use logic correctly (these are called fallacies), but the idea itslef has been proven (ironically through logic) time and time again.

except you can use logic to prove anything.

Quoting Overseer,

reply 23

except you can use logic to prove anything.

Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

If god exists, so does a flying spaghtti monster. The only real measure for religion is faith, you can choose to believe or not, just leave it at that.

try on that logic for size...

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.