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

[steve_bank]

so you don't want to refute the assertions i made. all the things listed point to a creator God.

Supposition and inference based on misrepresenting science is not evidence.

I must have missed it, is jc3142 a creationist? I thought he was a confused philosophizer.

yes or no. can matter create itself? if not then do you agree that what created it had to be non-matter (immaterial, super-natural)? if not, then why

The only thing that makes sense to me is an infinite universe with no beginning and no end. No need for a creator or a first cause. If not then the causation question comes up and you ether resort to a god-creator or something from nothing without causation.

What we see as the observable universe is a point in an infinite sequence of causalities. Our observational limit in dtecing the EM spectrum limirs what we percieve as the spatial limits of the universe. There is no way to know what the totality of existence is.

I reject both a god creator and something from nothing.

So. are you a creationist of some kind? I have known a few. What is it excactly hat you believe?

 

[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'...

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.

That is a deistic god at best (see original post) Do you have any other properties for this god other than "unfathomable"

 

[AdamWho]

JC1432 Can you work on how you quote things? It is making a huge mess and it is hard to read.

Use the symbols [ ] in the tool bar.

You also put a misquote under my name... please don't do that.

 

[steve_bank]

That is the issue. Express god as an equation and science can be applied.

Ag ruing the non existence based of something without definition and phsyical attributes based on science is analogous to theist proofs of god.

The theological utility of not having a defined god, as with Christians, is that it is up to the imagination o the believer. God is personalized.

 

[Jarhyn]

That is the issue. Express god as an equation and science can be applied.

Ag ruing the non existence based of something without definition and phsyical attributes based on science is analogous to theist proofs of god.

The theological utility of not having a defined god, as with Christians, is that it is up to the imagination o the believer. God is personalized.

Excepting that the logic of language at all shoves such a concept into an identifiable box of "simulation/host relationships".

It doesn't matter how it's defined because for its ambiguous definition to not be utterly nonsensical (rather than merely sensible but arbitrary within bounds), it has to accept the logic that operates around that mechanic. It's like a reverse Kalam:

That which exists has a context of change along some dimension of variance.
If that which has existence requires creation by something that exists, then that creator requires creation.
Therefore infinite regress.

Excusing the creator's existence excuses the universe's existence.

This is only released by letting go of the requirement, slipping from "must" to "may".

And at that point you are at "zero or more" not "one or more", nor at "zero"

Whomp-whomp.

 

[steve_bank]

Yadda yadda yadda. More empty philosophizing.

You can not apply science to what can not described in scientific terms. Those terms word be meters, kilograms, and seconds IOW Sytems International units.

The OP invokes science so speak in scintific terms.

 

[bilby]

That is the issue. Express god as an equation and science can be applied.

Ag ruing the non existence based of something without definition and phsyical attributes based on science is analogous to theist proofs of god.

The theological utility of not having a defined god, as with Christians, is that it is up to the imagination o the believer. God is personalized.

God, like slood, snurf, and wibble, cannot interact undetected with matter, because of what we know about matter. We need not know anything about these things other than that they don’t interact with the material that makes up humans in detectable ways, to be able to declare them 100% irrelevant to human lives in every respect.

At which point their existence isn’t so much disproven as it is completely unimportant.

No souls, no answered prayers, no miracles, no afterlife, no possible reason to have the slightest interest in what any religion says about anything at all with regards to human lives.

Philosophers can debate whether they want to call that situation ‘nonexistence’ or something else, but it’s good enough for me.

If you know enough about A, you need not know anything about B in order to rule out interaction between A and B. That’s the simple logical truth that your claim ‘We can’t disprove God without first defining God’ founders upon.

Repeating your erroneous claim doesn’t make it any less wrong.

 

[bilby]

You can not apply science to what can not described in scientific terms

Humans can easily be described in scientific terms. And one demonstrably true statement about humans is that they cannot survive being affected by any unknown influences, because any such influences must occur at energy densities incompatible with human survival.

If you don’t understand that CERN has demonstrated all possible interactions between physical systems at a wide range of energy densities that massively exceeds those survivable to humans, then you simply need to go away and learn more physics. If you won’t put that effort in, you could at least not shit all over the efforts of the physicists who have put in the effort, and accept the consensus that this is the case.

If you expect people to reiterate every detail of Quantum Field Theory and of the experimental evidence from CERN (and elsewhere) that it is an accurate description of reality at the relevant scale, here on the IIDB website, then you are unreasonable and delusional. That information is available to you, as you have an Internet connection. Nobody here has to do your homework for you.

You will find more use of SI units at the CERN website than you could possibly wish for.

 

[pood]

if you have listen to any pro God intellectual in the last bazillion years, it is not God of the Gaps - that is old school (centeries old) atheist rubbish. it is what we do know that is proclaimed by pro God scholars

All scientific discoveries of the last 50 years all point to a creator.

Big Bang, where all time, space, matter, and energy CREATED instantly out of nothing and not related to space, time, matter, energy. Chance of universe capable of sustaining life through randomness is 1 with 1240 zeros after it. (Dr. Donald Page).

Anthropic Principle: seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants (well over 30 of them) in the physics of the universe, have precisely the exact values you would need if you to have life in the universe.

Cambrian Explosion, where advanced animal life suddenly appeared without any precursors – putting evolution into the grave.

Origin of lIfe

Intelligence in DNA design and structure of information (command, meaning, code, communication) and instructions. Only intelligent beings are known to CREATE information and instructions (like a software programmer

Oh, dear.

Does anyone really want to waste time refuting all this rubbish?

 

[pood]

JC1432, since you won’t learn anything else here, can you at least learn how to use quote tags? I mean, you can quote selected portions and not whole reams of text, you know. If you have any problems figuring it out, ask Jesus for help.

 

[bilby]

if you have listen to any pro God intellectual in the last bazillion years, it is not God of the Gaps - that is old school (centeries old) atheist rubbish. it is what we do know that is proclaimed by pro God scholars

All scientific discoveries of the last 50 years all point to a creator.

Big Bang, where all time, space, matter, and energy CREATED instantly out of nothing and not related to space, time, matter, energy. Chance of universe capable of sustaining life through randomness is 1 with 1240 zeros after it. (Dr. Donald Page).

Anthropic Principle: seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants (well over 30 of them) in the physics of the universe, have precisely the exact values you would need if you to have life in the universe.

Cambrian Explosion, where advanced animal life suddenly appeared without any precursors – putting evolution into the grave.

Origin of lIfe

Intelligence in DNA design and structure of information (command, meaning, code, communication) and instructions. Only intelligent beings are known to CREATE information and instructions (like a software programmer

Oh, dear.

Does anyone really want to waste time refuting all this rubbish?

I doubt it. There’s nothing new here, so given that the old refutations have had zero impact, repeating them would appear to be an exercise in futility.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

JC1432 wrote
[so you are saying that the billion strands of DNA each coded with a 4 letter alphabet in the EXACT order to give instructions and information happened by chance, random mutations and natural selection? the chances of a billion letters just getting in the exact order to give instructions and information is by random mutations and chance. i can't stop laughing!

So you are saying the Anthropic Principle fine tuning, things like the exact precision for oxygen in the air, distance from the sun, expansion rate of the universe, thickness of the earth’s crust, speed of light, nuclear force that holds atoms together, distance between stars, energy density of space, seismic activity, position of Jupiter to protect the earth, earth being in the right place and right time, and up to 100 constants that must be exactly precise to have our life. but it happened by pure chance on ALL the constants. the probability of that is basically 0.]

Sorry, JC1432, you have it arseabout on both counts.

A god didn't create and fine tune a world which coincidentally suits the life forms on Earth. The conditions on Earth are such that these are the forms that COULD evolve. So they did. Given the diversity and range of lifeforms I am tempted to point out that every niche has been filled, given the restriction of a carbon/oxygen environment. When the atmosphere was mostly CO2 forms evolved to suit that. Where sulphur is abundant near undersea vents different biologies exploit those envronments. Had conditions been very different life would have taken a form which suited that prevailing environment, if life arose at all. There will be other planets out there, and if life has evolved it will take a different form and be the life that is possible there, given the available materials and energy sources prevailing.

Your DNA argument is similarly confused. There isn't a code invented by a god which coincidentally describes the life on this planet. We exist, and ACGT is a code, a notation, invented and used by scientists to describe the wonderful complexities they are seeing, in order to be able to discuss it intelligently.

I have rarely seen anyone so quintessentially putting the cart before the horse.

 

[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.

How would anyone ever come to know of such a God? By definition, they cannot - if you say that think such a God exists, then you are declaring that you don’t (and can’t) know anything about it, and are refuting your own position.

Beyond comprehension, like for example that God is a spirit as described in the bible. What is a spirit? What are the properties of such an entity?

Comprehensible: God created life and all other things. Being the Father of mankind, The Creator of life and the universe.

If such a God becomes in any way comprehensible, then it ceases to fit your description, and we can refute (or demonstrate) the existence of those attributes that are now comprehensible.

The comprhensible as I say above, wouldn't be not enough to go on, where you can demonstrate the claim: "science can prove, no such thing can exist." But there is enough here for a definition.

 

[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.

That is a deistic god at best (see original post) Do you have any other properties for this god other than "unfathomable"

It's not much of an issue, if the biblical God can be seen as deistic in some ways, depending what you're explaining here.

The fathomable is the old concept : God created life and all other things. Being the Father of mankind, The Creator of life and the universe, communicated with the prophets ( and the arrival of the begotten Son of God, Jesus).

 

[bilby]

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.

How would anyone ever come to know of such a God? By definition, they cannot - if you say that think such a God exists, then you are declaring that you don’t (and can’t) know anything about it, and are refuting your own position.

Beyond comprehension, like for example that God is a spirit as described in the bible. What is a spirit? What are the properties of such an entity?

Comprehensible: God created life and all other things. Being the Father of mankind, The Creator of life and the universe.

If such a God becomes in any way comprehensible, then it ceases to fit your description, and we can refute (or demonstrate) the existence of those attributes that are now comprehensible.

The comprhensible as I say above, wouldn't be not enough to go on, where you can demonstrate the claim: "science can prove, no such thing can exist." But there is enough here for a definition.

How does creating all things, including the utterly trivial and minuscule mankind, and being the creator of life and the universe, make it possible to interact with humans?

I mean, leaving aside the clear fact that the start of ‘mankind’ post-dates the creation of the universe by more than thirteen billion (with a ‘b’) years, how does creation of something grant any kind of future interaction? My car was created by a factory in Japan. That factory has exactly zero knowledge nor influence whatsoever on where or how I drive; And I feel no reason to worship that factory or its employees. If I were to be in an uncontrolled skid, I would be rather better advised to steer into the skid and not attempt to brake, than to pray to the factory workers who assembled the vehicle.

Why would a mere creator god matter, on a day to day basis, to the universe or its inhabitants?

 

[AdamWho]

My car was created by a factory in Japan. That factory has exactly zero knowledge nor influence whatsoever on where or how I drive; And I feel no reason to worship that factory or its employees. If I were to be in an uncontrolled skid, I would be rather better advised to steer into the skid and not attempt to brake, than to pray to the factory workers who assembled the vehicle.

Ironically this is about as good of a god as can exist (technological aliens seeding galaxy with life).... So maybe the Mormons are on to something.

 

[steve_bank]

...

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

Listing things that you don't understand and your lack of knowledge of what science does understand of them is hardly a substantial argument. Though, apparently, you are continuing the tradition of "I don't understand therefore god".

wow so you think there is a 5 letter alphabet in DNA and chance created information in dna.....and you have no clue on the Anthropic fine tuning constantsi can't stop laughing for your lack of scientific education.

WOW back at ya. It may be a good thing that your church knows nothing about the Mandelbrot set otherwise your church may worship Benoit Mandelbrot as god incarnate... unless they understood the 'magic' of iterative math equations.

so you obviously are not seeking truth by diverting and running away. you could care less if you are living your life based on lies and consequently making bad decisions on bad information. i guess you really don't care to have the best for yourself. nice life i feel so sorry for you

Seeking truth doesn't mean starting with the answer you want then twisting or inventing data to conform to that answer. I prefer the scientific method where the question comes first then data collected to try to find and understand what the answer is even if it isn't what was first thought.

you are not making sense. i state scientific facts first then let you tell me how to interpret the data, 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates information and instructions over a billion letter strand in the exact order, then ask you if that happened by chance and random mutations....of course you get laughed at if you say yes. then i asked you if matter can create matter. true to your form, you refused to answer simple questions.

then i told you about the anthropic principle, that went way over your head. these facts are not twisted but highly recognized and accepted facts of science. so you lied about me.

and just to show how out of touch you are, the scientific method cannot answer all questions. not even the vast majority of them. not everything is a repeatable, observable, lab based event. many are one time events that happened in history that you can't replicate (like the big bang)

The fact that you fail to understand does not mean I am not making sense. You don't understand because you are starting with the answer you want then offer your misunderstanding of science, apparently believing, "I don't understand therefore god". That isn't just circular reasoning but is intentionally forced circular reasoning.

Even if DNA sequencing wasn't understood (which it pretty much is) it wouldn't be an indication of a god but an indication that more research was needed to understand. Your ignorance of DNA is even less of an indication of a god.

hahahahaha go back to where ever your are and continue to think dna letters and information and instructions do not exist. honestly, i don't have time wasting on people like you that blabb nonsense say big bang, anthropic principle, information in DNA don't exist. it really is a waste of my time. so good bye

G'bye. Come back when you can't stay so long.

 

[Jarhyn]

...

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

Listing things that you don't understand and your lack of knowledge of what science does understand of them is hardly a substantial argument. Though, apparently, you are continuing the tradition of "I don't understand therefore god".

wow so you think there is a 5 letter alphabet in DNA and chance created information in dna.....and you have no clue on the Anthropic fine tuning constantsi can't stop laughing for your lack of scientific education.

WOW back at ya. It may be a good thing that your church knows nothing about the Mandelbrot set otherwise your church may worship Benoit Mandelbrot as god incarnate... unless they understood the 'magic' of iterative math equations.

so you obviously are not seeking truth by diverting and running away. you could care less if you are living your life based on lies and consequently making bad decisions on bad information. i guess you really don't care to have the best for yourself. nice life i feel so sorry for you

Seeking truth doesn't mean starting with the answer you want then twisting or inventing data to conform to that answer. I prefer the scientific method where the question comes first then data collected to try to find and understand what the answer is even if it isn't what was first thought.

you are not making sense. i state scientific facts first then let you tell me how to interpret the data, 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates information and instructions over a billion letter strand in the exact order, then ask you if that happened by chance and random mutations....of course you get laughed at if you say yes. then i asked you if matter can create matter. true to your form, you refused to answer simple questions.

then i told you about the anthropic principle, that went way over your head. these facts are not twisted but highly recognized and accepted facts of science. so you lied about me.

and just to show how out of touch you are, the scientific method cannot answer all questions. not even the vast majority of them. not everything is a repeatable, observable, lab based event. many are one time events that happened in history that you can't replicate (like the big bang)

The fact that you fail to understand does not mean I am not making sense. You don't understand because you are starting with the answer you want then offer your misunderstanding of science, apparently believing, "I don't understand therefore god". That isn't just circular reasoning but is intentionally forced circular reasoning.

Even if DNA sequencing wasn't understood (which it pretty much is) it wouldn't be an indication of a god but an indication that more research was needed to understand. Your ignorance of DNA is even less of an indication of a god.

hahahahaha go back to where ever your are and continue to think dna letters and information and instructions do not exist. honestly, i don't have time wasting on people like you that blabb nonsense say big bang, anthropic principle, information in DNA don't exist. it really is a waste of my time. so good bye

G'bye. Come back when you can't stay so long.

Well, looks like they played their "ban me" card.

 

[SIB]

It depends what we are calling a "god". Things like a pantheism type god might exist.

For me, "alive" seems to fit the system directly surrounding us right now. Well, at least just using the traits of life in any basic bio book.

 

[SIB]

You are the one claiming nothing even remotely like the things that people have studied and talked about for EONS exists when most people are mostly right most of the time.

The OP claim is perfectly accurate, if by 'like gods' we mean 'that has been worshipped as a god by any religion in human history'.

Religions invariably have gods that either created everything, or intervene in human lives (or deaths), or both; and both of these types of god are demonstrably impossible.

Inventing a third category and calling it 'god' is just pointless sophistry, unless you can recruit at least a small cult of devout believers who worship your new entity, and believe it to be both non-fictional, and worthy of the name 'god'.

People are mostly right most of the time. But they are also frequently wrong, and often cling to falsehoods for long periods of time. So that's a truly weak argument for anything.

Actually "inventing" another category" is not pointless. It may be pointless to you, but some have connections to the life around them that you may not have. Like Dogs. I have no idea why people treat them like they are anything more than an animal. I understand its me and not them tho. They love dogs, that's cool with me.

I like to see what claims match what we see around us the best. Do they offer an explanation, mechanism, and make repeatable predictions.

If a new set of traits for god match them, so be it. Its not going to be a deity. But its not going to be "nothing more" either. The belief in something more just matches what we experience better than nothing more.