How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[Michael]

Define the term "falsifiable" as it might apply to *any* cosmology theory for us. I'd love to hear how you'd go about falsifying the current "scientific" model.

 

[Davian]

Why not? I was able to provide at least some physical evidence to support the concept.

You failed to show how the concept was falsifiable. I am not doing your homework for you.

That's a complete cop out, and everyone knows it.

Would everyone like to chime in that thinks I am wrong about Michael's gods not being falsifiable?

I offered you a couple of options, one akin to Einstein's "Spinoza" type definition. All you did was flippantly handwave it away.

Who here worships Einstein's "Spinoza" type-god? It's boring, anyway.

What you *should have* done is acknowledge the *possibility* of God existing *as* the physical universe.

Another boring god. And it already has a name; we call it "the universe", or "the cosmos".

The fact you're closed minded toward the *possibility* of God existing speaks volumes. It's the atheistic flipside of a 'fundy'.

That's it, put the blame on the unbeliever. That why your god concepts get no traction here. Or, anywhere else.

How about Kim Jong-il? Was he not a god? I would agree that he existed.

 

[Davian]

Define the term "falsifiable" as it might apply to *any* cosmology theory for us. I'd love to hear how you'd go about falsifying the current "scientific" model.

Must every thread on this site suffer your cosmology rants?

 

[Michael]

Must every thread on this site suffer your cosmology rants?

Since you asked me to give you my personal definition of God, and you asked me how we'd go about falsifying the idea, yes, I'm afraid that you'll have to explain to me how you think it's possible to 'falsify' any cosmology belief. Start with any model you like, pantheistic cosmology concepts, or from the realm of so called "science". How would you falsify *any* theory about how we got here?

 

[Michael]

You failed to show how the concept was falsifiable. I am not doing your homework for you.

You failed to explain the term 'falsifiable' and how you *think* that term applies to cosmology theories in general. Only then could we discuss the concept. Since most claims in cosmology *defy* any *real* sense of 'falsification" potential, I'm sure this requirement is nothing but a two bit ruse so you can pretend to play the role of judge, jury and executioner.

Would everyone like to chime in that thinks I am wrong about Michael's gods not being falsifiable?

How does one falsify the inflation god? The dark energy god? The magic matter god? The space expansion god?

Who here worships Einstein's "Spinoza" type-god? It's boring, anyway.

Ya. I'm really more of a panentheist than a pantheist. Pantheism would indeed be quite boring IMO too.

Another boring god. And it already has a name; we call it "the universe", or "the cosmos".

Is the universe "aware" in your opinion?

That's it, put the blame on the unbeliever. That why your god concepts get no traction here. Or, anywhere else.

How about Kim Jong-il? Was he not a god? I would agree that he existed.

A single human isn't big enough to physically contain the God that I believe in, and you're straying from the topic intentionally.

 

[Davian]

Since you asked me to give you my personal definition of God, and you asked me how we'd go about falsifying the idea, yes, I'm afraid that you'll have to explain to me how you think it's possible to 'falsify' any cosmology belief. Start with any model you like, pantheistic cosmology concepts, or from the realm of so called "science". How would you falsify *any* theory about how we got here?

Nope. You are off topic for this thread.

 

[Davian]

You failed to explain the term 'falsifiable' <snip rant>

If you are unfamiliar with that term, perhaps we can explore that further in one of your threads.

<snip rant>

Off topic.

Ya. I'm really more of a panentheist than a pantheist. Pantheism would indeed be quite boring IMO too.


Is the universe "aware" in your opinion?

Not in a manner in which anyone has been able to demonstrate.

A single human isn't big enough to physically contain the God that I believe in,

How many do you need? Two? An even dozen?

and you're straying from the topic intentionally.

No, I am on the subject of Gods, even the ones that, by all appearances, appear to be only megalomanic humans.

 

[Michael]

If you are unfamiliar with that term, perhaps we can explore that further in one of your threads.

I'm familiar with the term, and I know it doesn't actually apply to cosmology theories in general. You're trying to use that as an excuse to write off a perfectly *empirical* definition of God, as a living and aware universe.

You've basically painted yourself into a corner simply because you refuse to acknowledge the mere *possibility* of God actually existing. Why? It's certainly a *possibility*, even if you personally think it's a low probability.

 

[Davian]

I'm familiar with the term,<snip unrelated text>

Then why ask for me to explain it?

You're trying to use that as an excuse to write off a perfectly *empirical* definition of God, as a living and aware universe.

Is that the universegod that zaps people with lightning bolts?

You've basically painted yourself into a corner simply because you refuse to acknowledge the mere *possibility* of God actually existing. Why?

Because your gods are untestable and unfalsifiable.

It's certainly a *possibility*, even if you personally think it's a low probability.

I have in my head a concept. Is what this concept describes possible?

 

[The Cadet]

Since you asked me to give you my personal definition of God, and you asked me how we'd go about falsifying the idea, yes, I'm afraid that you'll have to explain to me how you think it's possible to 'falsify' any cosmology belief. Start with any model you like, pantheistic cosmology concepts, or from the realm of so called "science". How would you falsify *any* theory about how we got here?

Well, just for example, the theory of evolution could be shown to be false by finding fossils in rock layers and with dates that make no sense, like a Precambrian Homo Erectus. The big bang theory could be falsified by showing that the universe is not expanding, by showing a galaxy distribution inconsistent with a singularity, and there's probably more (astrophysics is not exactly my wheelhouse).

Falsifiability is an absolute necessity for any scientific theory. If you cannot provide falsification criteria for your idea, what that means is that your idea makes no testable predictions about reality, which in turn means that regardless of whether it is true or not (and "unfalsifiable" means we can never find out and thus must assume that it is not through basic skepticism), it is useless. It does not help us understand reality in any way.

 

[Chriliman]

Falsifiability is an absolute necessity for any scientific theory. If you cannot provide falsification criteria for your idea, what that means is that your idea makes no testable predictions about reality, which in turn means that regardless of whether it is true or not (and "unfalsifiable" means we can never find out and thus must assume that it is not through basic skepticism), it is useless. It does not help us understand reality in any way.

This is my point exactly. We as subjective humans can never fully understand reality simply because we are subjective. So either we will continue into eternity trying to understand reality and trying to understand absolute truth, but until we figure out a way to remove ourselves from our brains, we'll never get there. My belief is that when we die, we are removed from our brains and are able to know the absolute truth, but when we are alive we can experience the absolute truth, it just requires belief and since belief is a fundamental requirement for a subjective mind, it's not to much to ask to simply believe the possible is possible. God is possible, why not believe? Consciousness is possible, even though there is no direct evidence that can be extracted and examined to prove that consciousness is possible, yet we all believe we are conscious, correct?

 

[Chriliman]

Consciousness is not falsifiable, so how could it be true that we are all conscious? The answer is that it is absolutely true that we are all conscious, but since we can't comprehend absolutes, we must believe that we are all conscious. Belief is far more powerful than any of us realize, so start using the power of belief.

 

[Chriliman]

Regarding what?

The thread title shows that you don't. Atheism is not a knowledge claim. It's a conclusion.

You said atheism is a conclusion, I'm curious as to what you think the conclusion is that atheism provides.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm defining consciousness as the ability of people to interact with the environment (for example, talking to me) so interacting with people would be direct evidence for consciousness under that system.

But you can't view their consciousness directly, so how is it direct evidence? If you could view their consciousness directly then you'd be able to read their mind, and if you could read everyone's mind you'd become a very powerful person, one might even say you'd be god like. Interesting, because my belief is that God can read everyone's mind.

If you would like to propose a different definition of consciousness that can be meaningfully distinguished from mine, feel free and i'll look at it from that perspective.

My definition of consciousness is that it can't be defined and therefore requires belief. This is also my definition for God, God can't be defined and therefore requires belief.

The trouble is this ends up circular. If goodness is defined as god-like-ness, it's meaningless to say God is good as it would be self referential. Think of it this way. next to me is a screwdriver. If you ask me to describe that screwdriver to you and I say, "the screwdriver next to me is much like the screwdriver next to me" it communicates nothing. Likewise, if goodness and God are the same thing, describing God as good communicates nothing about the nature of either.

Did I ever say God is just God? No, God can be described, however if you hope to be able to describe Him you must believe in Him. Same as if you want to describe the screwdriver next to you, all you have to do is look at it and believe it's actually there and not just created by your mind. Once you've realized it's actually there in objective reality you can see it and describe it.

We can only meaningfully speak back to the origins of our universe. The energy has been there since the origins of our universe. There is no meaningful way to speak about before the big bang. Think of it like the south pole. You can't go more south than the south pole, but we don't assume that the south pole caused the concept of south to come into being. The concept of "south" is a function of the rotation of the whole planet. Likewise, if we look at time rather than direction, we end up with an earliest time just as we end up with a most southern point. There is nothing earlier than that causing time to start just as there is nothing south of the south poll causing southness to start. They are both properties of the whole.

I'm familiar with Hawking's views of the origins of the universe and it's a problem for me because when we consider the universe as being absolute and not dependent on our minds to exist, then it becomes irrational to think that the universe could absolutely be nothing, then absolutely be something. If you start thinking absolutes can contradict then you've rendered the word "absolute" meaningless.

I only speak in terms of the origins of the universe from when we can meaningfully determine things about it. We can approach time zero much like we approach the limit of an undefined point in a function. However, the literal point itself is pretty meaningless, so i don't have much of an opinion on it at all.

Again, same problem, how can meaning come from no meaning?

 

[Cearbhall]

You said atheism is a conclusion, I'm curious as to what you think the conclusion is that atheism provides.

Yes, I said that atheism (a lack of belief in deities) is a conclusion.

 

[The Cadet]

This is my point exactly. We as subjective humans can never fully understand reality simply because we are subjective. So either we will continue into eternity trying to understand reality and trying to understand absolute truth, but until we figure out a way to remove ourselves from our brains, we'll never get there.

Either we will continue into eternity trying to understand reality and absolute truth, or... You left out the other half of that. Let me just clear up that other half: "or we will accept that a tentative understanding of reality is the best we can do, that absolute truth is a fool's game that no philosophy can reasonably provide, and use pragmatism to run our lives". Makes a fair bit of sense to me.

My belief is that when we die, we are removed from our brains and are able to know the absolute truth

Leaving aside the whole "what is there left of us after you remove everything that defines us as a person" issue, how does removing us from our brains help us experience absolute truth? It does nothing to resolve the problem of hard solipsism.

Consciousness is possible, even though there is no direct evidence that can be extracted and examined to prove that consciousness is possible, yet we all believe we are conscious, correct?

Are you kidding me? "I think therefore I am". The existence of one's own consciousness is the single most trivially obvious statement in all of philosophy. It's essentially the only statement about anything one can make without presupposing more than the logical absolutes. The consciousness of anyone else? That's a much harder philosophical problem; however, not one that is unanswerable by neuroscience.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, I said that atheism (a lack of belief in deities) is a conclusion.

The lack of belief in deities poses a new problem for atheist, the new problem is answering the question as to why we're all here. If you don't care to have an answer to this question then I don't care to talk to you.

 

[Cearbhall]

The lack of belief in deities poses a new problem for atheist, the new problem is answering the question as to why we're all here.

I don't see how a lack of belief in deities necessitates the belief that there's a "why." I never claimed that my lack of belief leads me to the conclusion that there's a reason why we're here.

If you don't care to have an answer to this question then I don't care to talk to you.

Pardon? Did I say something to offend you?

 

[Chriliman]

Either we will continue into eternity trying to understand reality and absolute truth, or... You left out the other half of that. Let me just clear up that other half: "or we will accept that a tentative understanding of reality is the best we can do, that absolute truth is a fool's game that no philosophy can reasonably provide, and use pragmatism to run our lives". Makes a fair bit of sense to me.

So you accept the answer that there is no answer to life? I simply can't accept that answer and don't care to talk to anyone who does accept that answer.

Leaving aside the whole "what is there left of us after you remove everything that defines us as a person" issue, how does removing us from our brains help us experience absolute truth? It does nothing to resolve the problem of hard solipsism.

You can solve the problem of hard solipsism with belief. We must believe that objective reality is absolute and not dependent on our minds to exist. We must believe that other people are conscious like ourselves. We must believe in God in order to experience God. Makes sense to me.

Are you kidding me? "I think therefore I am". The existence of one's own consciousness is the single most trivially obvious statement in all of philosophy. It's essentially the only statement about anything one can make without presupposing more than the logical absolutes. The consciousness of anyone else? That's a much harder philosophical problem; however, not one that is unanswerable by neuroscience.

Right, it's obvious to each one of us that we are each conscious, but it's not obvious that anyone besides ourself is conscious, which is why it requires belief that others are conscious. Belief solves all philosophical problems.

however, not one that is unanswerable by neuroscience.

So you "believe" neuroscience can answer the philosophical problem of consciousness, even though you just previously stated that we must accept that a tentative understanding of reality is the best we can do. Seems like you're contradicting yourself. You're believing in something that hasn't been proven yet, but then you're claiming you're an atheist because you lack belief in what has not been proven.

 

[Chriliman]

I don't see how a lack of belief in deities necessitates the belief that there's a "why." I never claimed that my lack of belief leads me to the conclusion that there's a reason why we're here.

Pardon? Did I say something to offend you?

I'm not offended, I just know when to stop talking to someone who is unwilling to care about life. Problem is I believe you do care. There's that power in belief again!