I think we can make the positive claim that nothing like 'gods' exist

[bilby]

I have had Bilby on ignore for years.

His 'science' tended to be derived from science fiction more than actual mathematical theories.

It’s not really surprising that someone who hasn’t learned anything since the 1970s should describe twenty first century science and technology as ‘science fiction’.

 

[AdamWho]

You are absolutely correct; Which is why this result is so surprising.

The thing is, you don’t need to know anything about gods to make this determination.

If you want to know if A can influence B, you don’t need to know anything about A, as long as you know every possible way that B can interact with the rest of reality.

There was no particular philosophical reason to expect that we would ever know every possible way that humans can interact with the universe; But it turns out that we can and do know that - and that the number of possible interactions is small (four, to be precise).

Like many results from Quantum Physics, this result is counterintuitive, weird, unexpected, and at odds with a number of things we previously thought of as highly likely. And, also like other results from Quantum Physics, this one matches theory to experiment with astonishing accuracy. It’s not wrong; We have checked.

If you know all the ways humans (who are made of matter) can interact with everything else, then you can rule out any unknown influences, without needing to know any more about them than that they aren’t one of the four influences that can interact with matter at human scales and temperatures.

No hypothetical fifth force can exist that can interact with a human without atomising him. So if you posit that a human has an immaterial ‘soul’, you must be wrong, unless that ‘soul’ interacts with the corporeal body by one of the four forces. And if it did, we could have and would have detected it.

Any ‘fifth force’ that can interact non-explosively with a human would have to be carried by a particle of sufficiently low mass as to have been created and detected in the LHC. No such particles have been detected. So either mass-energy equivalence is wrong (ie E does NOT equal mc²); Or Quantum Field Theory is wildly, hugely and obviously wrong (it’s not - QFT is one of the best tested theories in the history of science); Or gods cannot interact non-destructively with human scale matter without being obvious and easily detected doing so.

We almost certainly don’t know all of the possible ways that matter can interact. But we DO know all the ways that matter can interact at the modest temperatures and scales human beings inhabit.

A human being IS (at least in part) a physical phenomenon that can only interact with the rest of reality in four ways - Via the Strong and Weak nuclear forces, Electromagnetism, and Gravity.

Gravity cannot carry the soul of a dying man away without also affecting the whole population of Earth, because gravity acts at vast scales. The Strong and Weak nuclear forces cannot do it, for the opposite reason - they don’t have the range to get the soul (or the prayers, or the miracles) into or out of the body.

And Electromagnetic effects are well understood and very easy to detect. If they were responsible, we would see it.

Theologians have spent the entire period of the enlightenment claiming that there’s an unknown, possibly unknowable, way in which god interacts with man. But we now know ALL of the ways that man interacts with reality, and the only way that we could have missed detecting this ‘mysterious way’ would be for it to be non-real, or in other words, nonexistent.

Science tells us that the Earth isn’t 6,000 years old, by setting upper and lower bounds on possible ages for the Earth, and noting that “6,000 years” falls outside that possible range.

It similarly tells us that intervention by unknown influences (including, but certainly not limited to gods) can only occur outside the bounds of the energy density ranges we can test in the LHC. And we know that humans cannot survive (or even remain intact) except in a small range of energy densities that sits well within those bounds.

It’s just as correct to say that science tells us the Earth is not 6,000 years old as it is to say that science tells us that no gods exist. At least, no gods that interact, or can interact, in any way, with humans and their immediate environment.

Planets that are 6,000 years old certainly exist, but cannot possibly sustain human life. Unknown forces probably exist, but cannot possibly affect humans without disintegrating both the humans and a large volume of their surroundings.

I remember using that (nearly) exact line of reasoning 10 years ago when we were talking about PSI.

Remember when it was controversial to make the strong postive claim that PSI cannot not exist? Now that PSI isn't interesting, people don't need to be convinced that it doesn't exist.... but completely contradictory gods, that is TOTALLY controversial.

God beliefs are claims about how the universe operates.... but we don't even need to use science to say that incoherently defined gods don't exist.

 

[AdamWho]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

Maybe I should add the category of gods which don't exist: "Philosophical gods which only have the property that they cannot be ruled out as existing"

 

[steve_bank]

I have had Bilby on ignore for years.

So you don't know the argument or the underlying facts and you have made no effort to find out. But you are certain that the argument is flawed, or perhaps even that no such argument has been made. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

By the way, this argument has been discussed in multiple threads over the past year or two in posts by bilby, myself and others. You may have missed them, or you may not have understood what was being discussed, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you genuinely don't know. You could also have done some independent research using the keywords "standard model of physics" and "sean carroll", but apparently you couldn't be bothered to do that either.

His 'science' tended to be derived from science fiction more than actual mathematical theories.

So you know the argument cannot be right because.... bilby said so?

Link to a paper disproving god from MIT or Cal Tech that has appeared in a peer reviewd journal.

Dr Sean Carroll is tenured faculty at CalTech. And his work is easy to find. You can buy his books from Amazon, watch his lectures on Youtube, or read his science blog. And nothing that he says on this particular topic is even remotely controversial in the scientific community. You would know that had you actually made an effort to find out.

After going around in circles with bilby claiming energy was no longer a principle in physics and finding out he was referring to scifi I stopped engaging him.

Regardless, science can not address something it can not quantify. Numerical quantification is what separates science from religion and philosophy.

As to scientific proof for or against a god. As an engineer the Laws of Thermodynamics were tattooed on my chest. Conservation of mass. I take conservation as axiomatic based on a lifetime of experience. That being saidI can not prove matter can not appear from or go to nothing. There is no possible way to demonstrate experimentally.

A scientific question might be is a god subject to LOT? Does entropy apply to a god? I can say IF LOT applies to a god a god can not exist forever. But then perhaps a god is a form of perpetual motion. The LOT restriction against perpetual motion applies only to a system with a closed boundary across which energy and mass pass. I can come up with many ways to use science to argue against the existence of a god, but none of it is a proof god can not exist.

I base my view based on a lifetime of being immersed in and applying science. In both engineering and science debate is settled with a demonstration and an experiment. No such experiment is possible with god.

LOT when applied to cosmology can break down.

Science is not an individual or collective authority. Science is a set of mathematical models that gain acceptance over time. Models can and be and are used to make many claims, like multiple inverses. None of which are provable. QM has been used to make all sorts of claims.

Trying to prove god can not exist becomes as much theology as Christian proofs god exists.

If god does not exist why must you prove it.

 

[bilby]

I have had Bilby on ignore for years.

So you don't know the argument or the underlying facts and you have made no effort to find out. But you are certain that the argument is flawed, or perhaps even that no such argument has been made. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

By the way, this argument has been discussed in multiple threads over the past year or two in posts by bilby, myself and others. You may have missed them, or you may not have understood what was being discussed, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you genuinely don't know. You could also have done some independent research using the keywords "standard model of physics" and "sean carroll", but apparently you couldn't be bothered to do that either.

His 'science' tended to be derived from science fiction more than actual mathematical theories.

So you know the argument cannot be right because.... bilby said so?

Link to a paper disproving god from MIT or Cal Tech that has appeared in a peer reviewd journal.

Dr Sean Carroll is tenured faculty at CalTech. And his work is easy to find. You can buy his books from Amazon, watch his lectures on Youtube, or read his science blog. And nothing that he says on this particular topic is even remotely controversial in the scientific community. You would know that had you actually made an effort to find out.

After going around in circles with bilby claiming energy was no longer a principle in physics and finding out he was referring to scifi I stopped engaging him.

Regardless, science can not address something it can not quantify. Numerical quantification is what separates science from religion and philosophy.

As to scientific proof for or against a god. As an engineer the Laws of Thermodynamics were tattooed on my chest. Conservation of mass. I take conservation as axiomatic based on a lifetime of experience. That being saidI can not prove matter can not appear from or go to nothing. There is no possible way to demonstrate experimentally.

A scientific question might be is a god subject to LOT? Does entropy apply to a god? I can say IF LOT applies to a god a god can not exist forever. But then perhaps a god is a form of perpetual motion. The LOT restriction against perpetual motion applies only to a system with a closed boundary across which energy and mass pass. I can come up with many ways to use science to argue against the existence of a god, but none of it is a proof god can not exist.

I base my view based on a lifetime of being immersed in and applying science. In both engineering and science debate is settled with a demonstration and an experiment. No such experiment is possible with god.

LOT when applied to cosmology can break down.

Science is not an individual or collective authority. Science is a set of mathematical models that gain acceptance over time. Models can and be and are used to make many claims, like multiple inverses. None of which are provable. QM has been used to make all sorts of claims.

Trying to prove god can not exist becomes as much theology as Christian proofs god exists.

If god does not exist why must you prove it.

Why? Because knowing stuff, rather than just believing it, is fun, useful, and prevents major errors of judgement.

Conservation of mass died a century ago when Einstein showed that mass and energy are interchangeable; The conservation of energy died at the same time, to be replaced with the conservation of mass/energy.

I have never argued that “energy is no longer a principle in physics”; I am fairly interested in science fiction, but I don’t mistake it for anything other than fiction* - however a pompous fool with a chip on his shoulder might easily mistake my position, were he to imagine himself to be some kind of authority due to having decades of experience in “science”, when in fact he appears to instead have a few years of experience in engineering, that are now many decades out of date.

QM has been misused to make “all sorts of claims”. That doesn’t prevent it from being correctly used to make accurate claims about the ways matter and energy interact.









*Not that fiction doesn’t have significant value as a route to understanding human behaviour and society. Anyone who imagines SciFi to be about the future has missed the main game - SciFi is mostly about the present. H. G. Wells didn’t write an imaginative story about travels to the distant future; He wrote a scathing critique of Late Victorian and Early Edwardian British class structure and dynamics, and set it in the distant future, to avoid pissing off the people he was trying to persuade to change their ways.

People who lack the imagination to see past the fantastical stories of the future and read the subtextual critique of humanity are sadly very common; There’s never likely to be a world shortage of stuffy and unimaginative fools. I presume Steve thinks that Asimov was really into robots.

 

[AdamWho]

The article cited: The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood

The fact that, the Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood, is an important point in ruling out certain classes of gods (gods which violate physical law).

I have often cited this article when arguing against the existence of the supernatural but I don't feel it is necessary with the vast majority of gods that people believe in. This is because almost all gods (that people believe in) have contradictory properties that already rule them out.

Why appeal the incomplete (but sufficient) science when good old logic will work.

 

[JC1432]

The article cited: The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood

The fact that, the Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood, is an important point in ruling out certain classes of gods (gods which violate physical law).

I have often cited this article when arguing against the existence of the supernatural but I don't feel it is necessary with the vast majority of gods that people believe in. This is because almost all gods (that people believe in) have contradictory properties that already rule them out.

Why appeal the incomplete (but sufficient) science when good old logic will work.

Science says in the big bang that all time, matter, space, and energy were created. the universe had a beginning. all things that have a beginning must have a cause. There is no thing as an infinite regress of causes, so there was a beginning. what caused all time, matter, space, and energy to be created, well it is not possible that time, matter, space, and energy can create itself, so the creator must transcend space-time and matter – it must be beyond nature, thus super-natural, transcendent of nature. it is impossible to say otherwise

the creator also must be - according to basic philosophy and reasoning:

*outside all time, matter, energy, space and thus is immaterial (outside spacetime),
*powerful (created universe out of nothing),
*intelligent (to instantly create the universe in perfect precision for life),
*changeless (since timelessness entails changelessness),
*no beginning (because you can’t have an infinite regress of causes),
*personal (only personal beings can decide to create something out of nothing, impersonal things can’t decide)

SO WHAT IS THIS THING THAT CREATED ALL TIME, MATTER, ENERGY, and SPACE FOR THE UNIVERSE TO EXIST?

 

[skepticalbip]

The article cited: The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood

The fact that, the Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood, is an important point in ruling out certain classes of gods (gods which violate physical law).

I have often cited this article when arguing against the existence of the supernatural but I don't feel it is necessary with the vast majority of gods that people believe in. This is because almost all gods (that people believe in) have contradictory properties that already rule them out.

Why appeal the incomplete (but sufficient) science when good old logic will work.

Science says in the big bang that all time, matter, space, and energy were created. ....

No it doesn't.

Some pop sci. videos and pop sci. articles have implied it but the purpose of pop sci. is attract clicks or readers not to teach the reader or viewer physics, cosmology or actual science.

 

[atrib]

The article cited: The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood

The fact that, the Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood, is an important point in ruling out certain classes of gods (gods which violate physical law).

I have often cited this article when arguing against the existence of the supernatural but I don't feel it is necessary with the vast majority of gods that people believe in. This is because almost all gods (that people believe in) have contradictory properties that already rule them out.

Why appeal the incomplete (but sufficient) science when good old logic will work.

Science says in the big bang that all time, matter, space, and energy were created. the universe had a beginning.

Science says we can only look back to a point in time about 13.7 billion years ago where the local presentation of our universe was very small and very dense. While this could reasonably be described as the "beginning" of the local presentation of our universe, we have no evidence to support the claim that this hot, dense state originated ex nihilo (from nothing).

all things that have a beginning must have a cause.

We have no evidence to support this claim. And, a universe is not a thing, it is the collection of all things.

First, see above - we don't know if the universe came to exist from nothing. If the universe did not come into existence ex nihilo, then your argument is moot.
Second, in the universe we live in, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed at the emergent macroscopic scale we perceive with our senses, it can only be converted from one form to another. But this doesn't mean matter/energy cannot come into existence from nothing, since we have empirical evidence that matter/energy does indeed come to exist and then disappear out of empty space (nothing). And this can apparently happen as long as the net sum of matter/energy in the universe does not change.

There is no thing as an infinite regress of causes, so there was a beginning. what caused all time, matter, space, and energy to be created, well it is not possible that time, matter, space, and energy can create itself, so the creator must transcend space-time and matter – it must be beyond nature, thus super-natural, transcendent of nature. it is impossible to say otherwise

Why do you assume there was a creator? Even assuming a creator exists/existed, this creator would need to have the following attributes in order to create a universe populated with energy/matter:

1. It would have to be subject to time, which means it would have to subject to the arrow of time. This is because change requires time - to transition from a state in which the universe did not exist to a state in which the universe had been created requires the passage of time. The creator needs time to think and to act. This also means that the creator cannot be eternal, it too must have come into existence at some point in the past, (because of the arrow of time) and we are left with the problem of infinite regress.

2. In order to exist, the creator would have to be encapsulated in some realm, some form of spacetime, just as we are. The creator must also have had access to matter/energy in order to create the universe, since you claim that nothing can come from nothing. If you are claiming that the creator merely reshaped previously existing matter/energy into the current universe, why do we need a creator at all?

The creator argument is unsupported by our current state of the knowledge. There are potentially an infinite number of processes that could have initiated the expansion of the universe from a hot dense state state 13.7 BYA, and they are all pretty much unknown. A particular hypothesis that seems promising is inflation, which predicts that our universe expanded from a tiny speck of spacetime due to oscillations of an underlying scalar field, similar to the Higg's field that gives particles mass in our universe. Other scientists hypothesize that the universe is eternal, cycling endlessly through phases of expansion and eventual entropy death, not connected together on a continuous timescale, but discrete events separate unto themselves. Are you familiar with any of the work being done in this area?

the creator also must be - according to basic philosophy and reasoning:

*outside all time, matter, energy, space and thus is immaterial (outside spacetime),
*powerful (created universe out of nothing),
*intelligent (to instantly create the universe in perfect precision for life),
*changeless (since timelessness entails changelessness),
*no beginning (because you can’t have an infinite regress of causes),
*personal (only personal beings can decide to create something out of nothing, impersonal things can’t decide)

SO WHAT IS THIS THING THAT CREATED ALL TIME, MATTER, ENERGY, and SPACE FOR THE UNIVERSE TO EXIST?

Feel free to demonstrate using "basic philosophy and reasoning" that any of these creator attributes must be true. You can't, because Craig can't, and you are simply regurgitating Craig's argument here. Craig took the old, and deeply flawed Kalam argument and tacked on some extra bits, bits that are unsupported by facts and reason. But go ahead, take a crack at it anyway - just be warned that Craig is not going to be a help here.

 

[JC1432]

The article cited: The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood

The fact that, the Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood, is an important point in ruling out certain classes of gods (gods which violate physical law).

I have often cited this article when arguing against the existence of the supernatural but I don't feel it is necessary with the vast majority of gods that people believe in. This is because almost all gods (that people believe in) have contradictory properties that already rule them out.

Why appeal the incomplete (but sufficient) science when good old logic will work.

Science says in the big bang that all time, matter, space, and energy were created. the universe had a beginning.

Science says we can only look back to a point in time about 13.7 billion years ago where the local presentation of our universe was very small and very dense. While this could reasonably be described as the "beginning" of the local presentation of our universe, we have no evidence to support the claim that this hot, dense state originated ex nihilo (from nothing).

all things that have a beginning must have a cause.

We have no evidence to support this claim. And, a universe is not a thing, it is the collection of all things.

First, see above - we don't know if the universe came to exist from nothing. If the universe did not come into existence ex nihilo, then your argument is moot.
Second, in the universe we live in, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed at the emergent macroscopic scale we perceive with our senses, it can only be converted from one form to another. But this doesn't mean matter/energy cannot come into existence from nothing, since we have empirical evidence that matter/energy does indeed come to exist and then disappear out of empty space (nothing). And this can apparently happen as long as the net sum of matter/energy in the universe does not change.

There is no thing as an infinite regress of causes, so there was a beginning. what caused all time, matter, space, and energy to be created, well it is not possible that time, matter, space, and energy can create itself, so the creator must transcend space-time and matter – it must be beyond nature, thus super-natural, transcendent of nature. it is impossible to say otherwise

Why do you assume there was a creator? Even assuming a creator exists/existed, this creator would need to have the following attributes in order to create a universe populated with energy/matter:

1. It would have to be subject to time, which means it would have to subject to the arrow of time. This is because change requires time - to transition from a state in which the universe did not exist to a state in which the universe had been created requires the passage of time. The creator needs time to think and to act. This also means that the creator cannot be eternal, it too must have come into existence at some point in the past, (because of the arrow of time) and we are left with the problem of infinite regress.

2. In order to exist, the creator would have to be encapsulated in some realm, some form of spacetime, just as we are. The creator must also have had access to matter/energy in order to create the universe, since you claim that nothing can come from nothing. If you are claiming that the creator merely reshaped previously existing matter/energy into the current universe, why do we need a creator at all?

The creator argument is unsupported by our current state of the knowledge. There are potentially an infinite number of processes that could have initiated the expansion of the universe from a hot dense state state 13.7 BYA, and they are all pretty much unknown. A particular hypothesis that seems promising is inflation, which predicts that our universe expanded from a tiny speck of spacetime due to oscillations of an underlying scalar field, similar to the Higg's field that gives particles mass in our universe. Other scientists hypothesize that the universe is eternal, cycling endlessly through phases of expansion and eventual entropy death, not connected together on a continuous timescale, but discrete events separate unto themselves. Are you familiar with any of the work being done in this area?

the creator also must be - according to basic philosophy and reasoning:

*outside all time, matter, energy, space and thus is immaterial (outside spacetime),
*powerful (created universe out of nothing),
*intelligent (to instantly create the universe in perfect precision for life),
*changeless (since timelessness entails changelessness),
*no beginning (because you can’t have an infinite regress of causes),
*personal (only personal beings can decide to create something out of nothing, impersonal things can’t decide)

SO WHAT IS THIS THING THAT CREATED ALL TIME, MATTER, ENERGY, and SPACE FOR THE UNIVERSE TO EXIST?

Feel free to demonstrate using "basic philosophy and reasoning" that any of these creator attributes must be true. You can't, because Craig can't, and you are simply regurgitating Craig's argument here. Craig took the old, and deeply flawed Kalam argument and tacked on some extra bits, bits that are unsupported by facts and reason. But go ahead, take a crack at it anyway - just be warned that Craig is not going to be a help here.

wow, thank you for your very comprehensive reply. lots to chew on.

i didn't say the universe was a thing, only that something caused the universe to begin. Famed physicist Alexander Vilenkin states “With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

for infinity: Say you have orbital periods being coordinated of two planets so that every time 1 orbit which Saturn completes, Jupiter completes 2.5 times as many. If they have been orbiting from eternity, which planet has completed the most orbits?

Well the correct mathematical answer is that since infinity they have completed the same number of orbits. But this is absurd as the longer they revolve, the greater becomes the disparity between them so that they progressively approach a limit at which Saturn has fallen infinitely far behind Jupiter. Yet, being actually infinite, their respective completed orbits are somehow magically identical – both will have obtained infinity, the number of orbits is the same.

You cannot be caused by something else before you, cause/effects repeating into infinity, otherwise you would not be existing today. nothing includes no matter or energy or space or time. Only an immaterial and personal thing can do that as it has to be immaterial and has to be personal since it takes a personal being to decide to so something. impersonal things can't decide on things.


#1 time was created at the big bang. thus any reference to time that occured before the big bang just do not exist. there is no transition for time before just doesn't exist. the thing that created time, is timeless, therefore there is no temperal cause/effect in the creator. thus the creator is uncreated.

#2 i claim that nothing can't cause something to come out of nothing. but something can cause something to come out of nothing. there is no bouncing in and out universes indefinitely as all you did was just push the infinite regress condition back further. there still had to be a beginning. inflation doesn't matter because that involves space, which did not exist before the big bang

 

[Learner]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale (a scaling down) where humans can only observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

 

[JC1432]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale (a scaling down) where humans can only observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

the christian God is the only one that can be proved, as it is the only religion whose God came into human history, that we can verify through historical attestation

 

[Learner]

Ah ok, cheers for that JC.

 

[skepticalbip]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

 

[JC1432]

Ah cheers for that JC.

Ah cheers for that JC.

Ah ok, cheers for that JC.

you have to be kidding. someone is cheering for me on here? totally cool. thanks

 

[JC1432]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

Humans can detect God in the Holy Spirit, that is timeless, immaterial, non spatial, not energy.

 

[skepticalbip]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

Humans can detect God in the Holy Spirit, that is timeless, immaterial, non spatial, not energy.

And does nothing detectable. In other words a completely irrelevant philosophical concept of a god.

 

[Learner]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods... advanced aliens from far distant stars or galaxies then. Although it'll still be an interesting conversation nevertheless.

 

[skepticalbip]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods advanced aliens from distant civilisations then,

WTF does that even mean? A philosophical concept of some god that is not detectable and that does nothing is no different to humanity than no god. Such a god would be irrelevant.

 

[Learner]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods advanced aliens from distant civilisations then,

WTF does that even mean? A philosophical concept of some god that is not detectable and that does nothing is no different to humanity than no god.

It means you're proffessing to be wise, (using a biblcal term, generally anyone with the notion). I find this quite remarkable. There are a lot of things that is said not to be detectable but they're believed to be there i.e,. dark matter etc.,.But you can somehow detect if there is such a thing as god, guided, as it seems to me, by a desired personal definition (a somewhat limited entity) that is fathomable to the human mind.