• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

God of the Gaps

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
86,972
Reaction score
57,145
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
A being is just a particular thing that exists (as opposed to a concept, so my computer is a being, the internet is a being, but "technology" is not a being).

So the laws of physics can be a "being"?
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
What?
You have Not presented any relevant passages of Godel that "showed" there is god, or even Evidence OF god.
The great majority of NAS scientists are Atheists. The higher they are on the accomplishment ladder, the more atheist.
Godel is another Anecdote that is proof of nothing. Nor can you post debate that god is more likely than not.


I'm interested in Logical discusssion. You want to chat about, ie, your friend Ernie who was a drug addict and found a new addiction - religion - and is now doing much better.. as "proof" there is a god.
Um.... um...

It is a pity you do not read, what others write but comment on it.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So the laws of physics can be a "being"?

Did you not read what I just wrote?

"The laws of physics" is not a particular thing.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
All gods are gods of the gaps because no one can actually demonstrate objectively that any gods actually exist. And as the gaps close, followers move their gods elsewhere. They never acknowledge that they once claimed that gods were required for things that we now know was never true. They just hide their gods somewhere else.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,411
Reaction score
14,234
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I think anyone rather odd that thinks humanity capable at this time of deciding the question of the existence of a Creator or Her absence. Actually, there is even a mathematical proof that we cannot understand that much, as we are a subset of a very much larger reality and subsets cannot understand the whole. But, of course, Kurt Gödel might have been wrong.
Erm... What you're saying has nothing to do with Gödel's Theorem.

Gödel demonstrated that for any axiomatic system capable of generating an arithmetic, it can be either consistent or complete, but cannot be both. In particular, certain classes of self-referencing statements can be well-formed formulas within that system, but their truth-values cannot be established. It was developed not to declare that human intellect was too limited to understand the Gods; rather, it was designed to refute Russell and Whitehead's attempts to formalize a fully consistent axiomatic mathematical system, while relegating self-referential statements to metalanguages.

We should note that the development of paraconsistent logics and inconsistent mathematics may introduce methods to tolerate those potentially problematic statements.


As to the idea that humans cannot possibly decide the question of the existence of a deity? I don't see why not. It's not like humans were at their peaks of sophistication and empirical powers when they first came up with the idea of anthropomorphic gods. We have plenty of data, lots of tools, and lots of ways to explain what we see without invoking a deity.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
86,972
Reaction score
57,145
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Did you not read what I just wrote?

"The laws of physics" is not a particular thing.

But that's the point. You've made a logical jump from necessitating a cause and effect to that cause necessarily being a "being". Why can it not just be an event? And if it's a being, and everything needs cause and effect, that what caused the "being". Here, you will remove the necessity for cause and effect because it's convenient for the argument.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
But that's the point. You've made a logical jump from necessitating a cause and effect to that cause necessarily being a "being". Why can it not just be an event? And if it's a being, and everything needs cause and effect, that what caused the "being". Here, you will remove the necessity for cause and effect because it's convenient for the argument.

And it's never just "a being", it's the specific being that they happen to believe in and worship. You just can't get there from here but that doesn't stop them.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
But that's the point. You've made a logical jump from necessitating a cause and effect to that cause necessarily being a "being". Why can it not just be an event? And if it's a being, and everything needs cause and effect, that what caused the "being". Here, you will remove the necessity for cause and effect because it's convenient for the argument.

First of all, an event can only happen if it has beings for it to happen to.

Second, you misunderstood the argument. I didn't say everything needs a cause. Everything that is contingent needs a cause (by definition, if a thing could either be or not be, then something must cause it to be one or the othe). If it is impossible for something to not exist, then there doesn't have to be a cause of its existing. Note that a cause is not the same as an explanation.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
86,972
Reaction score
57,145
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
First of all, an event can only happen if it has beings for it to happen to.

How do you know? Do random vacuum fluctuations require someone to set them off?
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,783
Reaction score
52,038
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
First of all, an event can only happen if it has beings for it to happen to.

Second, you misunderstood the argument. I didn't say everything needs a cause. Everything that is contingent needs a cause (by definition, if a thing could either be or not be, then something must cause it to be one or the othe). If it is impossible for something to not exist, then there doesn't have to be a cause of its existing. Note that a cause is not the same as an explanation.




The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks require a reason. :shrug:
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How do you know? Do random vacuum fluctuations require someone to set them off?

I know that because I understand English.

There's nothing about virtual particles that negates what I said.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks require a reason. :shrug:

I'm not even arguing for Christianity here, just for the fact that God exists, which can be proven through rational arguments.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
86,972
Reaction score
57,145
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I know that because I understand English.

There's nothing about virtual particles that negates what I said.

No, you made it up because it fits your conclusion. Vacuum fluctuations and quantum uncertainties DO negate what you say. For it is entirely possible, within the realm of physics, that the universe is created by such an event. No "being" is necessitated. You make that part up because there is a particular conclusion you want to push.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No, you made it up because it fits your conclusion. Vacuum fluctuations and quantum uncertainties DO negate what you say.

No, they do not. What I said was strictly metaphysical, and thus not dependent on contingent facts like how the laws of physics work. Trying to discuss particular contingent realities in a general discussion of contingent reality is an attempt at changing the subject.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
86,972
Reaction score
57,145
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
No, they do not. What I said was strictly metaphysical, and thus not dependent on contingent facts like how the laws of physics work. Trying to discuss particular contingent realities in a general discussion of contingent reality is an attempt at changing the subject.

It's not changing subjects. It's displaying your logical leap. Your number 4 does not logically follow from 3 because there is no necessity on a "being" to bring about the universe as we know it. As I have clearly demonstrated.

QED
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not even arguing for Christianity here, just for the fact that God exists, which can be proven through rational arguments.
Of course it Cannot be proven, and hasn't been by far better than posting here.
Another ridiculous religious claim on your part. (not to mention which/Witch god is that?)
Your posts are all basically one-line assertions, as you are unable to write a coherent logical paragraph of proactive origin, or in refutation, and are rightly afraid of writing anything more as you know everyone on the other side CAN refute your simplistic inquisition shtick.

Basically, you are using the Goofy 'something can't come from nothing' routine. Of course, that also includes/destroys your argument for god, especially an !mmaculately conceived one. You don't get logic exceptions for your personal magic.

The Only thing we Can prove is that man created gods: Tens of thousands, including your BS god, who is no better than the Northwest Native American Bear god.
 
Last edited:

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It's not changing subjects. It's displaying your logical leap. Your number 4 does not logically follow from 3 because there is no necessity on a "being" to bring about the universe as we know it. As I have clearly demonstrated.

QED

I've fixed it to avoid triggering your semantic hang up:

1. Things can either exist by logical necessity or by contingency.
2. If a thing is contingent, then something must cause it to exist rather than not exist.
3. Consequently, there must be a cause of contingent things, which is not itself contingent.
4. Thus there is a necessary being, who caused the existence of all contingent beings.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Basically, you are using the Goofy 'something can't come from nothing' routine.

Which is, of course, not what I said.
 

William Rea

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
2,231
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I'm not even arguing for Christianity here, just for the fact that God exists, which can be proven through rational arguments.

Define 'God' and explain your use of the capitalisation.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Define 'God' and explain your use of the capitalisation.

The creator of everything else that exists.

I am happy to discuss the capitalization in a thread dedicated to that, or privately. But I don't want to derail this thread.
 

William Rea

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
2,231
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
The creator of everything else that exists.

I am happy to discuss the capitalization in a thread dedicated to that, or privately. But I don't want to derail this thread.
It's on topic. 'God' with the capitalisation usually denotes the monotheistic Abrahamic God. Is that what you mean?

Anyway, this God, is that all it is, the creator or first mover? No other attributes or properties?
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
86,972
Reaction score
57,145
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I've fixed it to avoid triggering your semantic hang up:

1. Things can either exist by logical necessity or by contingency.
2. If a thing is contingent, then something must cause it to exist rather than not exist.
3. Consequently, there must be a cause of contingent things, which is not itself contingent.
4. Thus there is a necessary being, who caused the existence of all contingent beings.

4 still doesn't follow from 3, unless you want to say that quantum uncertainty is a "being". Is quantum uncertainty a "being"?
 

Frank Apisa

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
11,492
Reaction score
2,718
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;

I do not know if there are no gods;

I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist;

I see no reason to suspect that gods are needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...so I don't.



Seems so clear-cut to me...although I acknowledge I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
86,972
Reaction score
57,145
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;

I do not know if there are no gods;

I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist;

I see no reason to suspect that gods are needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...so I don't.



Seems so clear-cut to me...although I acknowledge I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.

We've all seen this argument before. You've cut and pasted it into quite enough threads by this time. We are all aware of your opinion on the matter. Less you can come up with something a bit more original, perchance it is time to rethink the cut-and-paste strategy of arguments.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Anyway, this God, is that all it is, the creator or first mover? No other attributes or properties?

None that are germane to the present discussion.

4 still doesn't follow from 3, unless you want to say that quantum uncertainty is a "being". Is quantum uncertainty a "being"?

Trying to discuss particular contingent realities in a general discussion of contingent reality is an attempt at changing the subject.
 
Top Bottom