God of the Gaps

[grip]

How does one determine the "plausibility" of any theory about the REALITY of existence?

Is the existence of a god or gods...more or less plausible than the non-existence of any gods?

Why?

God is unprovable and reality is part of an existential existence that can never be completely known by one person. So it's a matter of 'know thyself.'

 

[Frank Apisa]

God is unprovable and reality is part of an existential existence that can never be completely known by one person. So it's a matter of 'know thyself.'

Maybe I did not make my questions clear:


How does one determine the "plausibility" of any theory about the REALITY of existence?

Is the existence of a god or gods...more or less plausible than the non-existence of any gods?

Why?

 

[grip]

Maybe I did not make my questions clear:


How does one determine the "plausibility" of any theory about the REALITY of existence?

Is the existence of a god or gods...more or less plausible than the non-existence of any gods?

Why?

Reality is a two way show, what you perceive and what is being projected are exclusive.

It's not plausible, it's a realistic certainty from which you will live and die by.

God is life. You don't have believe it, accept it, or acknowledge it but you will ultimately deal with it. Fact.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Reality is a two way show, what you perceive and what is being projected are exclusive.

It's not plausible, it's a realistic certainty from which you will live and die by.

God is life. You don't have believe it, accept it, or acknowledge it but you will ultimately deal with it. Fact.

Oh! You don't even have to worry about plausibility. You KNOW the REALITY.

Who woulda thunk it?

 

[cabse5]

What if it's not as plausible as any other theory?

The scientific method is to examine all possibilities, preclude those that couldn't then what is left are legitimate candidates for answers. One doesn't say the Boston Red Sox can't win the World Series because I don't like them (as atheists do with God(s) theories of creation).

 

[mbig]

The scientific method is to examine all possibilities, preclude those that couldn't then what is left are legitimate candidates for answers. One doesn't say the Boston Red Sox can't win the World Series because I don't like them (as atheists do with God(s) theories of creation).

Nonsense premise/Bad analogy.
Atheists don't "not like god," there's just NO god in evidence.
The only reason the Bosox can win the World series is we know they exist as a team.
Do ya think 'god' can win the World Series?
If 'god' can do anything, then that's "Not impossible" as Apisa would Goofily profer... and I guess you too.

 

[cabse5]

Nonsense premise/Bad analogy.
Atheists don't "not like god," there's just NO god in evidence.
The only reason the Bosox can win the World series is we know they exist as a team.
Do ya think 'god' can win the World Series?
If 'god' can do anything, then that's "Not impossible" as Apisa would Goofily profer... and I guess you too.

The only thing evident in your response is your prejudice against the existence of god(s).

 

[RAMOSS]

The scientific method is to examine all possibilities, preclude those that couldn't then what is left are legitimate candidates for answers. One doesn't say the Boston Red Sox can't win the World Series because I don't like them (as atheists do with God(s) theories of creation).

Part of decieding what is a legitmate candidate for answer is test-ability and fallibility. How would you test or falsify the concept of God?

 

[pinqy]

The scientific method is to examine all possibilities, preclude those that couldn't then what is left are legitimate candidates for answers.

IF and ONLY IF, the propositions are falsifiable...meaning that there is a possible way to show it is not possible. We cannot rule out invisible non-corporeal fairies being responsible for gravity, but that doesn't make it a legitimate candidate for answers.

 

[Cally]

currently, the origins of life is somewhat of a mystery. Will god be obsolete should this mystery be solved?

 

[RAMOSS]

currently, the origins of life is somewhat of a mystery. Will god be obsolete should this mystery be solved?

Why would it be? All it would mean is that 'God is not needed from the beginning of life', not that 'God did not begin life'. Of course, one first must be able to dfine 'what do you mean when you say God' first.

 

[Cally]

Why would it be? All it would mean is that 'God is not needed from the beginning of life', not that 'God did not begin life'. Of course, one first must be able to dfine 'what do you mean when you say God' first.

god's kind of useless if life needed no Absolute Creator. ok, how about if it could be proven that the universe is infinite. ? ..

 

[Deuce]

Maybe I did not make my questions clear:


How does one determine the "plausibility" of any theory about the REALITY of existence?

Is the existence of a god or gods...more or less plausible than the non-existence of any gods?

Why?

Null hypothesis.

 

[RAMOSS]

god's kind of useless if life needed no Absolute Creator. ok, how about if it could be proven that the universe is infinite. ? ..

Well, same thing.

Can you define what an 'Absolute Creator' actually is?? What are the characteristics of an 'Absolute Creator'? How do you know? It's so vaguely defined it could mean just about ANYTHING.

When it comes to 'what is God', when it comes to how other people use the term, I am ignostic.. I have a very precise definition I use for myself.. but that is for my personal beliefs,..

 

[Cally]

Well, same thing.

Can you define what an 'Absolute Creator' actually is?? What are the characteristics of an 'Absolute Creator'? How do you know? It's so vaguely defined it could mean just about ANYTHING.

When it comes to 'what is God', when it comes to how other people use the term, I am ignostic.. I have a very precise definition I use for myself.. but that is for my personal beliefs,..

lol

not really. Absolute Creator couldn't mean "just about ANYTHING." Absolute, by nature, is rather exclusive as far as terminology is concerned. Do I need to say it's Jesus or Allah for it to be specific enough?

god: An infinite being who created the universe, and exists outside of it.

 

[matchlight]

I've never seen the simple fact some natural phenomenon is not yet fully understood as evidence of the supernatural. But anyone who thinks the entire natural world can ultimately be understood completely, given good enough theories and measuring devices, just does not understand even the basics of quantum mechanics. Some amount of randomness is part of the natural world--it is to some extent unpredictable. There are distances and times so short that we can never determine exactly what is occurring within them, no matter how good our observing instruments may be. If someone wanted to call this inherently, perpetually unknowable part of things divine, I don't see why someone else's claim that is is not should be superior.

 

[RAMOSS]

lol

not really. Absolute Creator couldn't mean "just about ANYTHING." Absolute, by nature, is rather exclusive as far as terminology is concerned. Do I need to say it's Jesus or Allah for it to be specific enough?

god: An infinite being who created the universe, and exists outside of it.

well, that really doesn't say anything, now does it. I have no idea what is meant by 'An infinite being'. The term 'Being' has so many meanings. I mean, without more information about what is meant by 'being', and what an 'infinite being' would be, it's just so much word salad.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Nonsense premise/Bad analogy.
Atheists don't "not like god," there's just NO god in evidence.
The only reason the Bosox can win the World series is we know they exist as a team.
Do ya think 'god' can win the World Series?
If 'god' can do anything, then that's "Not impossible" as Apisa would Goofily profer... and I guess you too.

Goofily???

 

[Frank Apisa]

Null hypothesis.

Perhaps it still is not clear:

How does one determine the "plausibility" of any theory about the REALITY of existence?

Is the existence of a god or gods...more or less plausible than the non-existence of any gods?

Why?

 

[Deuce]

Perhaps it still is not clear:

How does one determine the "plausibility" of any theory about the REALITY of existence?

Is the existence of a god or gods...more or less plausible than the non-existence of any gods?

Why?

Because non-existence is the null hypothesis and evidence of existence is not available.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Because non-existence is the null hypothesis and evidence of existence is not available.

I'll break my questions down...to make it a bit less confusing for you:

How does one determine the "plausibility" of any theory about the REALITY of existence?

 

[William Rea]

Because non-existence is the null hypothesis and evidence of existence is not available.

Good luck with that and the fundamentalist agnostic.

 

[cabse5]

Part of decieding what is a legitmate candidate for answer is test-ability and fallibility. How would you test or falsify the concept of God?

Until one can test or falsify the concept of god(s), THIS IS PHILOSOPHY. That is what we're all talking about - PHILOSOPHY. By the same token, one can't declare there is no life on Mars. Has anyone extensively probed Mars for life? No. Its quite likely there could be life forms on Mars thriving in conditions very dissimilar to ours. That has happened to some hostile environments on our own present-day mother Earth.

Atheists want to bring a physicist's gun to a philosopher's fight. This discussion of whether god(s) created the universe is a PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION. One can't test a hypothesis whether god(s) created the universe in a lab anymore than one can test a hypothesis that god(s) DIDN'T CREATE THE UNIVERSE IN A LAB.

If atheists are determined to bring a physicist's gun to a philosopher's fight, they are prejudiced or uneducated. Figure it out, just once.

 

[RAMOSS]

Until one can test or falsify the concept of god(s), THIS IS PHILOSOPHY. That is what we're all talking about - PHILOSOPHY. By the same token, one can't declare there is no life on Mars. Has anyone extensively probed Mars for life? No. Its quite likely there could be life forms on Mars thriving on conditions very dissimilar to ours. That has happened to some hostile environments our own mother Earth.

Atheists want to bring a physicist's gun to a philosopher's fight. This discussion of whether god(s) created the universe is a PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION. One can't test a hypothesis whether god(s) created the universe in a lab.

If one is determined to bring a physicist's gun to a philosopher's fight, that person is prejudiced. Figure it out, just once.

Yet, if someone is proclaiming they have 'truth', and say my eternal existence is based on if I believe in what they believe, they need something more than 'because I say so'. When it comes to the 'God of the Gaps', why, yes, people who claim there is a God and created the universe have made a truth claim about the physical world, so at that point, it goes beyond philosophy. At that point, you have to first define 'what do you mean by God' , and 'how do you know it', else, it is words without meaning, trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[cabse5]

Their belief or your belief. Which is more valid? Well, you'd say your belief is more valid. I've got news. Beliefs can't be tested (or changed). That's why this is all about philosophy.