Can you make a case for a God...

[Cephus]

This same statement can be repeated over and over again, but it will never become true because of it. If someone accepts the possibility of (let me put my redneck twang on for a second) that there God, then it just means they admit they can't vindicate that the opposite is true.

I'm sorry, but do you think people are going to church to worship gods that they think are possible, or that they think actually exist. Are they praying to gods that are possible, or that they are convinced are real? Think about your answer before you post it.

 

[Mach]

Things like God and dreams, were left for last, by science. Someday they may need to update the method so there is a way to address things we view from inside the mind.

No, that's a god is in the cracks argument.

Dreams are experienced by real people, in reality, are evidenced routinely, and the inability of us with current technology to record them is entirely irrelevant.
God, is not.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

You're mixing systems. If science is about reality, then claims not about reality have no place there. By definition. It's not up for debate, unless you want to debate one of the premises?

You can have a science about religion, but it's about human beliefs, psychology, nueroscience, historical fact, etc. It's not about gods, it's about beliefs about gods.

They are making claims about reality. Science exclusively deals with claims of reality. Therefore, they are making a scientific claim, no?

 

[Mach]

They are making claims about reality. Science exclusively deals with claims of reality. Therefore, they are making a scientific claim, no?

Who zgoldsmith23? What is the specific claim?

Here's a common example, but this is a reasoned-argument, not a scientific one:

God: A supernatural being....
Supernatural : Beyond nature
Nature: reality
Beyond: outside of/not
-> God is not real
It's a claim about not reality.

But you believe it's a claim about reality? That would be illogical right?

 

[Cephus]

Dreams are experienced by real people, in reality, are evidenced routinely, and the inability of us with current technology to record them is entirely irrelevant.
God, is not.

We can prove that dreams actually happen within the brain, there's no question about that whatsoever. We might not understand everything about dreams, but we can show they happen. God, however, is something entirely without a shred of objective evidence, there's no reason to think that God is real.

How people can't comprehend this, I'll never understand.

 

[Cephus]

Who zgoldsmith23? What is the specific claim?

Here's a common example, but this is a reasoned-argument, not a scientific one:

God: A supernatural being....
Supernatural : Beyond nature
Nature: reality
Beyond: outside of/not
-> God is not real
It's a claim about not reality.

But you believe it's a claim about reality? That would be illogical right?

"Supernatural" doesn't tell us a thing about God, it only tells us what God is not, not what God is. It's a simple fact that we have no reason to think there is anything beyond nature. Making a claim that something exists beyond nature without any evidence to support it is pointless. It's just a bunch of mental masturbation.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Who zgoldsmith23? What is the specific claim?

Here's a common example, but this is a reasoned-argument, not a scientific one:

God: A supernatural being....
Supernatural : Beyond nature
Nature: reality
Beyond: outside of/not
-> God is not real
It's a claim about not reality.

But you believe it's a claim about reality? That would be illogical right?

A claim such as "god created the universe?" The universe is reality, right?
A claim such as "a god that can intervene on behalf of people?" People dwell in reality, yes?
A claim such as "god talks to me?"

 

[NoC_T]

No, that's a god is in the cracks argument.

Dreams are experienced by real people, in reality, are evidenced routinely, and the inability of us with current technology to record them is entirely irrelevant.
God, is not.

How is it irrelevant, where the foundation of these debates seemingly rests upon evidence of something not universally experienced or able to be replicated for measurement? God also, is something that millions of people, the world over, and in every time and place have exprienced. Not unlike dreams.

Your insistence as to one being relevant, where the other is not, is contradictory, hypocritical and overly convenient. Not to mention biased.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

How is it irrelevant, where the foundation of these debates seemingly rests upon evidence of something not universally experienced or able to be replicated for measurement? God also, is something that millions of people, the world over, and in every time and place have exprienced. Not unlike dreams.

Your insistence as to one being relevant, where the other is not, is contradictory, hypocritical and overly convenient. Not to mention biased.

Who are you to judge? Who are you to insult by inference. You seem to forget that you are only posting opinions.

 

[NoC_T]

Who are you to judge? Who are you to insult by inference. You seem to forget that you are only posting opinions.

What are you talking about?

This is not the Basement. This is a debate.

There was no insult.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

What are you talking about?

This is not the Basement. This is a debate.

There was no insult.

IMHO, there was.

 

[NoC_T]

IMHO, there was.

Would you care to explain just where you saw one? And why you believe it was an insult?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Would you care to explain just where you saw one? And why you believe it was an insult?

I already did. I apoligize to the members for getting off topic. End of our discussion.

 

[NoC_T]

I already did. I apoligize to the members for getting off topic. End of our discussion.

No, you didn't.

You said I insulted by inference.

Where did I do that, precisely?

 

[Mach]

A claim such as "god created the universe?" The universe is reality, right?
A claim such as "a god that can intervene on behalf of people?" People dwell in reality, yes?
A claim such as "god talks to me?"

Reasonably they are all contradictions, so no, they are not claims about reality.
THink of a computer program. You may write an equation that makes sense like A+B+C=
However, if "A" is undefined, it doesn't (shouldn't) try to solve the equation, it throws an error "A" is undefined. Same here.

How is it irrelevant, where the foundation of these debates seemingly rests upon evidence of something not universally experienced or able to be replicated for measurement? God also, is something that millions of people, the world over, and in every time and place have exprienced. Not unlike dreams.

Bias? Its reason, it's bias-less.
Dreams are defined as a real experience resulting from real, measurable phenomenon in the brain, governed by the laws of physics, etc. And, we all evidence them.
God is defined as not real. (see above)

Real, vs not real.

Logically the opposite, of dreams.

The only avenue for reasoned rebuttal here is to define god in such a way that god is real, but then god will be a synonym most likely for something we know in reality, and not this omnipotent creator of the universe.
Of course it makes sense, religion is about what reality doesn't provide...safety, security, certainity, universal love, etc. Why would you think religious people would want to turn the divine, into the mundane? Makes no sense. It's called divine for a reason. It uses faith and not reason for the same reason.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Reasonably they are all contradictions, so no, they are not claims about reality.
THink of a computer program. You may write an equation that makes sense like A+B+C=
However, if "A" is undefined, it doesn't (shouldn't) try to solve the equation, it throws an error "A" is undefined. Same here.

How're they contradictions?

 

[Mach]

How're they contradictions?

Post #504
Shorthanded:
God is supernatural
God is outside of reality, i.e. not real.

1. A claim such as "god created the universe?" The universe is reality, right?
2. A claim such as "a god that can intervene on behalf of people?" People dwell in reality, yes?
3. A claim such as "god talks to me?"

Two contradictions jump out from such claims:
That you have knowledge of what the "not real" is doing, did, or is...in reality.
That something not real, interacts with reality (intervene, talks to you, etc.)

 

[Verthaine]

Let's say, for the sake of arguement, that a "case can be made for a God" and it turns out to be Brahma that was the Creater of the Universe?
Then what?
How many people of different religions here are going to convert to Hinduism?

 

[Cephus]

How is it irrelevant, where the foundation of these debates seemingly rests upon evidence of something not universally experienced or able to be replicated for measurement? God also, is something that millions of people, the world over, and in every time and place have exprienced. Not unlike dreams.

Yet that's the question. Because these things are not universally experienced, or indeed, able to be experienced according to some, we have to question whether they are being experienced at all, or of it's just an illusion or wishful thinking or misidentification on the part of the believer. Yet the believer is unwilling to acknowledge these concerns or to test their beliefs or to think rationally or critically about their beliefs. Like the drunk who sees pink elephants, the believer is unwilling to consider the possibility that they just imagined experiences and because they attach emotional significance to those experiences, they will then try to rationalize all the holes and problems with those experiences away.

 

[Cephus]

Reasonably they are all contradictions, so no, they are not claims about reality.
THink of a computer program. You may write an equation that makes sense like A+B+C=
However, if "A" is undefined, it doesn't (shouldn't) try to solve the equation, it throws an error "A" is undefined. Same here.

Assuming you have the values for B, C and the answer, it's not hard to come up with A. It's basic mathematics. However, you're not talking about a variable that is undefined, you're trying to make it undefineable. The reality is, if A is undefineable, then your equation is entirely pointless to even consider, just as God is entirely pointless if you're going to define God out of any rational evaluation.

Dreams are defined as a real experience resulting from real, measurable phenomenon in the brain, governed by the laws of physics, etc. And, we all evidence them.
God is defined as not real. (see above)

No, dreams are not defined as a real experience. Dreams happen entirely within the brain, they are an electro-chemical phenomenon that have no real existence outside of the brain. In fact, I think religious experiences are likely closer to dreams than you'd like to realize, there is no evidence to think they are any more real than dreams are. They might feel that way, the individual may rationalize them as real, but the fact remains, they almost certainly occur entirely within the brain and have no other manifestation in reality.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Post #504
Shorthanded:
God is supernatural
God is outside of reality, i.e. not real.

1. A claim such as "god created the universe?" The universe is reality, right?
2. A claim such as "a god that can intervene on behalf of people?" People dwell in reality, yes?
3. A claim such as "god talks to me?"

Two contradictions jump out from such claims:
That you have knowledge of what the "not real" is doing, did, or is...in reality.
That something not real, interacts with reality (intervene, talks to you, etc.)

We agree they are both silly, right? The premise under question here is whether god is "outside of reality" (i.e. not real). Many theists create some fictitious case such as "well, he's god, he can move in and out of the natural world."

 

[Cephus]

We agree they are both silly, right? The premise under question here is whether god is "outside of reality" (i.e. not real). Many theists create some fictitious case such as "well, he's god, he can move in and out of the natural world."

I think you called it. God is being defined as "outside of reality" not "outside of the physical universe". Okay, I can entirely agree with that. That means God isn't real and doesn't exist.

Problem solved.

 

[Mach]

Assuming you have the values for B, C and the answer, it's not hard to come up with A. It's basic mathematics. However, you're not talking about a variable that is undefined, you're trying to make it undefineable. The reality is, if A is undefineable, then your equation is entirely pointless to even consider, just as God is entirely pointless if you're going to define God out of any rational evaluation.

Definitions of god that are contradictory are pointless in that context, I agree. Illogical. Unreasonable. Just different words for the same thing, sure.

They are not necessary pointless for humans to hold or ponder in reality though. I think the list of evidence that humans value faith-based beliefs including those of gods or a single god, needs no elaboration. Even the most aggressive argument can still demonstrate that belief in a god can have a real, measureable, placebo effect. That's not to mention all of the other community, tradition, etc., benefits some people enjoy.

No, dreams are not defined as a real experience. Dreams happen entirely within the brain, they are an electro-chemical phenomenon that have no real existence outside of the brain.

Semantics.
P1: I dream of an alien that can travel faster than light and has a perpetual motion machine in his hand. Call the subject of the dream X.
C1: The physiological experience of the dream, is real. I factually, had a dream about X. Yes, it is defined as real.
C2. The subject of the dream X is not real, it's fictional. I did not see an alien in reality. No, the dream does not correspond to a memory of a real event, or is itself the dreamed-of event.

In fact, I think religious experiences are likely closer to dreams than you'd like to realize, there is no evidence to think they are any more real than dreams are. They might feel that way, the individual may rationalize them as real, but the fact remains, they almost certainly occur entirely within the brain and have no other manifestation in reality.

See above.

 

[Mach]

We agree they are both silly, right? The premise under question here is whether god is "outside of reality" (i.e. not real). Many theists create some fictitious case such as "well, he's god, he can move in and out of the natural world."

If you're being strict about it, you have to get a definition.

If the definition is outside of reality, contradictory, etc., that's the solution, and there is no evaluation beyond that. 99% of people try to then discuss proof of god, evidence, etc., (see it in this very thread, all threads of this sort I bet), which leads to silliness. That's because they are literally chasing nothing. They should halted the argument where it stops making sense. You can do all sorts of valid logical manipulations with false premises.

If instead they define god as something in reality, say, the god of nature, that is basically nature, then it's just a synonym for nature, and is accepted as reasonable. Misleading, but reasonable.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

There is a God and boy is She pissed off.