Quantcast
Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

Well, is it objectively verifiable?

Yes 57 15.20%
 
Not Sure 20 5.33%
 
No 244 65.07%
 
What's objective mean? 16 4.27%
 
Results 38 10.13%
 
Total:375
nuckles87 said:

Thanks, you saved me a lot of work.

From what I can gather, Frank, your singular argument for God is "only God could have created a universe with rules."

If you want to credit God for the creation of the universe, fine. We have evidence for the evolution of the universe leading all the way up to the "Big Bang" but nothing beyond that (at least as far as I know. I'm no scientist). You want to credit God with the big bang? Go right on ahead. No one in the scientific community is stopping you right now. Just know that not knowing something isn't "proof" of something's existence.

Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge. We used to think the world was flat, because that's how it appeared to us. In reality, when greek mathmeticians applied math to the idea, they discovered that the Earth was curved, and therefor must be round. We used to assume that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around us. But then through astronomy we discovered moons around other bodies, came to realize we were orbiting the sun, and eventualyl realized our solar system sat in the spiral arm of a milky way galaxy. We assumed that was the only galaxy until we discovered other galaxies in the 1930s. We once assumed that the universe was created by God as described in the Bible, until we eventually began to discover evidence for a "big bang" which culminated in our discovery in the background radiation that gave us a look at how the universe was near the very beginning.

But there are flows in your own explanations.

-  You tell "I'm no scientist", then why do you believe in science ? There are proves, but beyond your understanding, told and written by people you don't know, that you probably never read, but if you would, it would be at a simplistic level that doesn't prove anything. I mean I graduated in a sciences, but I don't know much about Carbon 14, just the basic concept of datation. I've never seen C14 (you can't really even see it in a direct way), I'm not able to understand or prove by myself, but all my knowledge of datation depends on it. Still I'm not a unbeliever, C14 and all, the dinosaurs, the age of the Universe, I believe it to be true... but really, our belief in science and scientists is not very different than listening a priest quoting the Bible, if not faith, at least it's a very high level of trust.

- You tell that "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge", with an analogy to the discover of galaxies, understanding of the moon. But there is a pretty strong chance the understanding of "before" the big bang is impossible, outside the scope of what science can explain. It's beyond observation, probably impossible to simulate, test. So it could really not be a "we don't know yet". We know that science progress, very fast, but we don't know at all were are the limits, we could progress exponentially forever to nowhere.

- "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Sorry but I can seriously write "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used mathematical demonstration and science to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Because you know, Newton calculations are not really a knowledge. They are just that, calculations, models, that happen to work for a limited number of cases, if things are not too fast, or not too big, or not to small. The guy was a genius, and it's good enough to send a rocket to the moon, but it's not a knowledge, a real understanding. Science really accepts to be always proven wrong (at least in the sense that its field of application is drastically reduced), but still there is this strange feeling that science claims any step is dead certain. Do you think Newton said "and I could be wrong in some or even most cases, because I'm working in a such limited set of examples, a bunch of apples, 5 planets, and the moon... and I mean it's the 17 century, come on, we don't even have a laser to measure anything, so don't take me too seriously, I'm not meaning every priest is telling fairytales, next step in science could be that the Earth is flat" ? Everyone is cock sure, theists and atheists, they get it right at any point of the time.

- Science answers to how, not to why. Even if it answers to why, it's in the form of a "how". So, should the scientific method which is basically to understand how, applies to a question that is fundamentally "why" or "is there a why" ? Wether I can feel pain, or I can't, wether I can feel love or not, I don't have a need for science to prove or disprove it scientifically (even if it's great to understand how for medecine). I don't feel there is a God, that's why I'm an atheist. Let's stop BS about someone knowing more that the other... we know nothing and my belief is that we will probably never know anything at a significant level !



Around the Network
Norris2k said:
nuckles87 said:

Thanks, you saved me a lot of work.

From what I can gather, Frank, your singular argument for God is "only God could have created a universe with rules."

If you want to credit God for the creation of the universe, fine. We have evidence for the evolution of the universe leading all the way up to the "Big Bang" but nothing beyond that (at least as far as I know. I'm no scientist). You want to credit God with the big bang? Go right on ahead. No one in the scientific community is stopping you right now. Just know that not knowing something isn't "proof" of something's existence.

Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge. We used to think the world was flat, because that's how it appeared to us. In reality, when greek mathmeticians applied math to the idea, they discovered that the Earth was curved, and therefor must be round. We used to assume that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around us. But then through astronomy we discovered moons around other bodies, came to realize we were orbiting the sun, and eventualyl realized our solar system sat in the spiral arm of a milky way galaxy. We assumed that was the only galaxy until we discovered other galaxies in the 1930s. We once assumed that the universe was created by God as described in the Bible, until we eventually began to discover evidence for a "big bang" which culminated in our discovery in the background radiation that gave us a look at how the universe was near the very beginning.

But there are flows in your own explanations.

-  You tell "I'm no scientist", then why do you believe in science ? There are proves, but beyond your understanding, told and written by people you don't know, that you probably never read, but if you would, it would be at a simplistic level that doesn't prove anything. I mean I graduated in a sciences, but I don't know much about Carbon 14, just the basic concept of datation. I've never seen C14 (you can't really even see it in a direct way), I'm not able to understand or prove by myself, but all my knowledge of datation depends on it. Still I'm not a unbeliever, C14 and all, the dinosaurs, the age of the Universe, I believe it to be true... but really, our belief in science and scientists is not very different than listening a priest quoting the Bible, if not faith, at least it's a very high level of trust.

- You tell that "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge", with an analogy to the discover of galaxies, understanding of the moon. But there is a pretty strong chance the understanding of "before" the big bang is impossible, outside the scope of what science can explain. It's beyond observation, probably impossible to simulate, test. So it could really not be a "we don't know yet". We know that science progress, very fast, but we don't know at all were are the limits, we could progress exponentially forever to nowhere.

- "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Sorry but I can seriously write "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used mathematical demonstration and science to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Because you know, Newton calculations are not really a knowledge. They are just that, calculations, models, that happen to work for a limited number of cases, if things are not too fast, or not too big, or not to small. The guy was a genius, and it's good enough to send a rocket to the moon, but it's not a knowledge, a real understanding. Science really accepts to be always proven wrong (at least in the sense that its field of application is drastically reduced), but still there is this strange feeling that science claims any step is dead certain. Do you think Newton said "and I could be wrong in some or even most cases, because I'm working in a such limited set of examples, a bunch of apples, 5 planets, and the moon... and I mean it's the 17 century, come on, we don't even have a laser to measure anything, so don't take me too seriously, I'm not meaning every priest is telling fairytales, next step in science could be that the Earth is flat" ? Everyone is cock sure, theists and atheists, they get it right at any point of the time.

- Science answers to how, not to why. Even if it answers to why, it's in the form of a "how". So, should the scientific method which is basically to understand how, applies to a question that is fundamentally "why" or "is there a why" ? Wether I can feel pain, or I can't, wether I can feel love or not, I don't have a need for science to prove or disprove it scientifically (even if it's great to understand how for medecine). I don't feel there is a God, that's why I'm an atheist. Let's stop BS about someone knowing more that the other... we know nothing and my belief is that we will probably never know anything at a significant level !

+1





RadiantDanceMachine said:
Puppyroach said:
The problem is that it is claimed to be a supernatural creature that works outside of time and space as we know it. It is then very easy for anyone who believe in its existence to claim it because we can never disprove it. But the moment the believers, or holy texts, claim to have physical evidence of god, then he seizes to be a creature outside of our realm.

So if we were to prove that a god existed, it would be through scientific methodology and therefore god would be a creature limited by natural laws and a scientific entity, not a supernatural one. Therefore it stands to reason that god does not exist since he cannot be a supernatural entity governed by natural laws and is only a figment of people's imagination.

That's part of the point though. If there is such a god that is totally isolated from the Universe, the deistic variation, then his existence is inconsequential to us.

However if there is a god of the personal variety, which you seem to be addressing in paragraph 2, which interacts with the Universe we should be able to detect these interactions since they would violate the laws of physics. It's not that it would be reducible and confined to physical laws, it's simply that there would be obvious signs of these times when he does interact. Similar to when you toss a rock into a body of water, the entry creates a ripple effect. 



 

But if God IS/ARE the laws of physics.  Mind = blown.

You keep suggesting he has to operate outside the laws of physics.  But if that IS God.  Think about it, we are inherently obeying him and bending to his will, because we ALL have to adhere to the LAWs of physics.

 

Either that or an ancient alien.



With current technology, no. But it very well could be in the future.





Around the Network
Norris2k said:
nuckles87 said:

Thanks, you saved me a lot of work.

From what I can gather, Frank, your singular argument for God is "only God could have created a universe with rules."

If you want to credit God for the creation of the universe, fine. We have evidence for the evolution of the universe leading all the way up to the "Big Bang" but nothing beyond that (at least as far as I know. I'm no scientist). You want to credit God with the big bang? Go right on ahead. No one in the scientific community is stopping you right now. Just know that not knowing something isn't "proof" of something's existence.

Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge. We used to think the world was flat, because that's how it appeared to us. In reality, when greek mathmeticians applied math to the idea, they discovered that the Earth was curved, and therefor must be round. We used to assume that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around us. But then through astronomy we discovered moons around other bodies, came to realize we were orbiting the sun, and eventualyl realized our solar system sat in the spiral arm of a milky way galaxy. We assumed that was the only galaxy until we discovered other galaxies in the 1930s. We once assumed that the universe was created by God as described in the Bible, until we eventually began to discover evidence for a "big bang" which culminated in our discovery in the background radiation that gave us a look at how the universe was near the very beginning.

But there are flows in your own explanations.

-  You tell "I'm no scientist", then why do you believe in science ? There are proves, but beyond your understanding, told and written by people you don't know, that you probably never read, but if you would, it would be at a simplistic level that doesn't prove anything. I mean I graduated in a sciences, but I don't know much about Carbon 14, just the basic concept of datation. I've never seen C14 (you can't really even see it in a direct way), I'm not able to understand or prove by myself, but all my knowledge of datation depends on it. Still I'm not a unbeliever, C14 and all, the dinosaurs, the age of the Universe, I believe it to be true... but really, our belief in science and scientists is not very different than listening a priest quoting the Bible, if not faith, at least it's a very high level of trust.

- You tell that "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge", with an analogy to the discover of galaxies, understanding of the moon. But there is a pretty strong chance the understanding of "before" the big bang is impossible, outside the scope of what science can explain. It's beyond observation, probably impossible to simulate, test. So it could really not be a "we don't know yet". We know that science progress, very fast, but we don't know at all were are the limits, we could progress exponentially forever to nowhere.

- "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Sorry but I can seriously write "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used mathematical demonstration and science to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Because you know, Newton calculations are not really a knowledge. They are just that, calculations, models, that happen to work for a limited number of cases, if things are not too fast, or not too big, or not to small. The guy was a genius, and it's good enough to send a rocket to the moon, but it's not a knowledge, a real understanding. Science really accepts to be always proven wrong (at least in the sense that its field of application is drastically reduced), but still there is this strange feeling that science claims any step is dead certain. Do you think Newton said "and I could be wrong in some or even most cases, because I'm working in a such limited set of examples, a bunch of apples, 5 planets, and the moon... and I mean it's the 17 century, come on, we don't even have a laser to measure anything, so don't take me too seriously, I'm not meaning every priest is telling fairytales, next step in science could be that the Earth is flat" ? Everyone is cock sure, theists and atheists, they get it right at any point of the time.

- Science answers to how, not to why. Even if it answers to why, it's in the form of a "how". So, should the scientific method which is basically to understand how, applies to a question that is fundamentally "why" or "is there a why" ? Wether I can feel pain, or I can't, wether I can feel love or not, I don't have a need for science to prove or disprove it scientifically (even if it's great to understand how for medecine). I don't feel there is a God, that's why I'm an atheist. Let's stop BS about someone knowing more that the other... we know nothing and my belief is that we will probably never know anything at a significant level !

As someone whose studies science you should also know that unlike faith and "belief", there is peer review, experimentation and critique. Even then, concepts are constantly reviewed, revised and updated. I don't think you can really compare a religious belief to the constant rigor of testing and self-improvement the scientific method has. Whilst I might not understand everything in science, I can view the data directly and discuss with people who work in the field. If I don't know about C14, I can go online and find a whole plethora of data from various instruments and learn how to interpret it.

Your third bullet is even making the same point. Science is contantly adjusting its models to an increasingly large pool of information whereas god/religion is a simplistic explanation that can never be tested or improved upon.



Derek89 said:
RadiantDanceMachine said:

Now contrast this with the objective - that which is not subject to interpretation. For example, suppose I had filmed the 9/11 terror attacks. No one can argue that two planes did not collide with the WTC because it's right there on video. (ignoring the possibility of doctored videos, which can be detected anyway)

You either don't understand what objectivity is or you're projecting your own definition of it to shape the discussion on your terms.

Everything observed is subject to interpretation. Someone has to observe it and interpret it to be able to communicate it, and senses are not quite "not subjective" to be able to make such a claim that if you don't see it as I do, then you're seeing it wrong. If you did not learn this in your philosophy class; knowledge, the information you use to form any idea, is just memories. In terms of certainty, you don't really "know" anything. You just remember how you experienced it. Convention of knowledge just places your experiences in context in the enviornment you're in, for which it's helpful to understand and predict scenarios within that environment, but it doesn't make that knowledge any less "true" or "false". This applies to every kind of knowledge, including scientific knowledge which is ever changing and evolving.

Saying that you can observe objectively is a sign that you might be an intstrumentalist, which, ironically is a philosophy that is based off empiricism; the philosophy of "experiencing". But either way, even if you're an instrumentalist, you can claim all you want that you can observe objectively, but you can't prove it. Paradox much.

With that out of the way; as of now, no. If conventionalism says there is no observable proof of any god, then it can't be "objectively" verifiable.

But that's very positivist of me, though. I like the more open minded and yet secular answer; given we think the universe is infinite (observably) and the human understanding of quantum mechanics (and for which its mechanical wave function is actually being debated for ontological attribution, lol), I think yes. Everything that can happen has already happened somewhere.

A better question, IMO, is:

Is God's inexistence objectively verifiable?

I'll just leave this here.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Might wanna make sure you actually know what you're talking about before attempting correction. 

At no point did I make any proclamations about my ability to observe objectively, in fact I stated the exact opposite. How you confused what was so explicitly stated is truly baffling to me.

g911turbo said:

But if God IS/ARE the laws of physics.  Mind = blown.

You keep suggesting he has to operate outside the laws of physics.  But if that IS God.  Think about it, we are inherently obeying him and bending to his will, because we ALL have to adhere to the LAWs of physics.

 

Either that or an ancient alien.

Tell me this isn't a serious post? This is nothing but label swapping. We already have a term for the laws of physics, it's...the laws of physics.





Who knows, the notion of god seems to vary a lot.
There is however no way to prove the god of the Abrahamic religions.

(For a game forum, you guys sure do love to discuss religion topics...)



"If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the long run hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness every day."

It is simple if you have no absolute right and wrong than nothing you said in the OP matters it could either be right and wrong depending on your point of view. Your whole argument relies on everything you said being accurate. If there is no overall purpose than all of that is in your head and will mean nothing when you die. There is nothing in the beginning and there will be nothing in the end and everything will be as if it never was. If you want to be save from this nothingness you have to have faith that can't be absolutely proven even if it is in your false view of the world.

It is guaranteed that no matter who you are no matter when, your view of how things are is wrong if God exist you will never be able to comprehend him/it ect. Just like you will never be able to comprehend the physical reality. Scientists today are not even close they believe in an invisible thing called dark matter that they don't have proof of when it could be that they don't understand gravity. Now if something like what caused the universe is discovered even though it is impossible to observe I would guarantee that you will die before it you find out and that knowledge will eventually be lost.

Now you could have faith in science about any of these things and you have unreasonable faith that can't be proven. Answer this question. What is the concrete rock bottom fact that all other facts are based on? What is the eternal reality that doesn't run down that won't eventually become nothing?

Now here is an even harder question. Why should anyone listen to you? Why should I bother to even consider your position when it won't help me or improve my life one iota. What if I die in one day I would have wasted that day worrying about your pointless thread and if you say because it is true then you have to tell my why anyone should care about the truth if it will eventually disappear, but if that is the case it wasn't actually true. But is what I just said true? Who would you ask? And the would you have unreasonable faith that they were right?

But why would you care about anything I just typed? How do I know that you read everything I typed or considered it no matter what you say should I have unreasonable faith that you will tell me the truth or that you are as smart as you think. But of course replying to me would be pointless I could die tomorrow and everyone who reads this will die. Is the only point that it makes you feel something, but then why should people care about others feelings. If I never visit this website again for all I know you died in a week or never read this.

The only reason I type is I believe that in some way that what we believe is right and wrong, and therefore there is a stranded that people are capable of being farther from or closer to. If this isn't the case than there is no point in saying something is right or wrong because there is no meaning to saying a line is crooked if you have no straight line to compare them to.

People aren't logical so therefore science will never be completely logical if it was completely logical it would only offer expectations laws are not logical because they represent the absolutes and absolutes are unreasonable faith and are only science when absolutely proven because then you have to have unreasonable faith that the person you ask these questions are telling you the truth for things that you can't check for yourself.

No one cares about you they only care about how you make them feel, but of course I don't believe this , but if you are an atheist how do you convince me or anyone that this is not true. Not to insult anyone, but why would insults be wrong to anyone but the person being insulted. After all do on to others what you would have them do to you is an unreasonable sentiment that is not proven by science. If you care about the future after you die that is not truth because you stop caring so it is unreasonable faith in the fact that thing have meaning after you die. So logically only selfishness is logical and anything is permitted as long as it is beneficial to you and you can reasonably get away with it.

I would call this wrong, but I will never find out what you think about it because I will never read to your reply. To me it will be like I am typing to nobody and for all I know nobody will read it and I am only doing this because of the feeling it is making me feel now or perhaps it is the right thing to do, but how do you know you are doing the right thing?



RadiantDanceMachine said:
Derek89 said:
RadiantDanceMachine said:

Now contrast this with the objective - that which is not subject to interpretation. For example, suppose I had filmed the 9/11 terror attacks. No one can argue that two planes did not collide with the WTC because it's right there on video. (ignoring the possibility of doctored videos, which can be detected anyway)

You either don't understand what objectivity is or you're projecting your own definition of it to shape the discussion on your terms.

Everything observed is subject to interpretation. Someone has to observe it and interpret it to be able to communicate it, and senses are not quite "not subjective" to be able to make such a claim that if you don't see it as I do, then you're seeing it wrong. If you did not learn this in your philosophy class; knowledge, the information you use to form any idea, is just memories. In terms of certainty, you don't really "know" anything. You just remember how you experienced it. Convention of knowledge just places your experiences in context in the enviornment you're in, for which it's helpful to understand and predict scenarios within that environment, but it doesn't make that knowledge any less "true" or "false". This applies to every kind of knowledge, including scientific knowledge which is ever changing and evolving.

Saying that you can observe objectively is a sign that you might be an intstrumentalist, which, ironically is a philosophy that is based off empiricism; the philosophy of "experiencing". But either way, even if you're an instrumentalist, you can claim all you want that you can observe objectively, but you can't prove it. Paradox much.

With that out of the way; as of now, no. If conventionalism says there is no observable proof of any god, then it can't be "objectively" verifiable.

But that's very positivist of me, though. I like the more open minded and yet secular answer; given we think the universe is infinite (observably) and the human understanding of quantum mechanics (and for which its mechanical wave function is actually being debated for ontological attribution, lol), I think yes. Everything that can happen has already happened somewhere.

A better question, IMO, is:

Is God's inexistence objectively verifiable?

I'll just leave this here.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Might wanna make sure you actually know what you're talking about before attempting correction. 

At no point did I make any proclamations about my ability to observe objectively, in fact I stated the exact opposite. How you confused what was so explicitly stated is truly baffling to me.

g911turbo said:

But if God IS/ARE the laws of physics.  Mind = blown.

You keep suggesting he has to operate outside the laws of physics.  But if that IS God.  Think about it, we are inherently obeying him and bending to his will, because we ALL have to adhere to the LAWs of physics.

 

Either that or an ancient alien.

Tell me this isn't a serious post? This is nothing but label swapping. We already have a term for the laws of physics, it's...the laws of physics.



"outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."

You quote wikipedia, you fail to understand what it says AND to relate it with what I said.

Did objectivity's conventionalism part of my comment confused you too much to ignore it all together and call for individual objectivity and rule it out at the same time? I ruled it out myself with my previous comment, and you try counter argument with that, lol?

Also, if you'd bother reading your own "sources":


"The importance of perception in evaluating and understanding objective reality is debated. Realists argue that perception is key in directly observing objective reality, while instrumentalists hold that perception is not necessarily useful in directly observing objective reality, but is useful in interpreting and predicting reality. The concepts that encompasses these ideas are important in the philosophy of science."

 

You don't just "generalize" theories or use their summaries to try to use in your advantage.

What is really baffling to me is how clearly desperate you are to look smart yet you resort to use a closed answer discussion for easy argumentation against literal believers. If you want to look smart, you should use ontological resources to expand the discussion, but you limit it to the all so basic "objectivity".