A.I. proves God exists...

[James R]

We did not create the deer, there is a difference. We did not create anything, god did.

And not just that. If god is the omnipotent creator of everything, then he decided to create the whole "nature red in tooth and claw" system.

As humans, we can't turn wolves into vegetarians. But as gods, I assume we would be able to do.

Oh, and if you're worried about the welfare of those poor plants that are ruthlessly eaten by the herbivores, then we can also consider the question of why the loving god decided that things need to eat at all.

 

[James R]

Yes, certainly when it comes to science there is nothing in it which rules out religious belief, as evidenced by the large numbers of scientifically literate people who follow a religion.

There are almost as many varieties of religion as there are people, so obviously there's a huge range of things that different people believe.

Scientology is a religion, even though it's plainly ludicrous - so much so that its leadership keeps all the most insane bits hidden far away from new customers clients marks followers.

Scientifically literate religious people tend to cherry pick the parts of mainstream religions that mesh best with their own moral compasses, while ignoring the more unsavory bits and pieces, and the bits that are directly contradicted by science. People are very good at compartmentalising. And if you want to think of yourself as religious but you aren't impressed by the mainstream dogmas, you can always be a deist or adopt some kind of watered-down version of one of the mainstream faiths. Failing that, you can make up your own god to suit yourself.

You're right that science can't "rule out religious belief". It can't even rule out the possibility that one or more gods are real. It can, however, place rather strict limits on what those gods are capable of doing in the world, because the world looks essentially indistinguishable from how we'd expect it to look if there were no gods at all, as far as our science can tell.

A lot of the earlier Dawkins polemic was simply knocking down creationism...

He was doing that long before he went public with The God Delusion.

... which is not part of mainstream Christianity (nor Judaism either, I rather think)...

Only because mainstream Christians, for the most part, have stopped insisting that every verse in the bible must be literally true, at least insofar as it talks about facts about the material world that are checkable.

We can argue the extent to which American evangelical Christianities are "mainstream", of course. Seems to me like they are mainstream in the United States, given the percentages of self-declared American Christians who identify that way.

The focus on creationist ideas about life (i.e. biology, Dawkins' own field) is why I wonder if the New Atheism initiative may have been in part a reaction to the Intelligent Design movement in the US (1995-2005 ish) which at one stage looked rather frighteningly as if it would get mainstream political endorsement and become hard to dislodge.

There was no "New Atheism" initiative, as such. Coincidentally, four best-selling books were written withing several years of one another. At the relevant time, the world was also dealing with the evils of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and the fallout from 9/11. It meant that a lot of people were receptive to arguments against religious extremism of all stripes. Once you're tackling religious extremism, the logical next step is to question the foundations of such.

The battle against Creationism and, later, the Intelligent Design trojan horse, had been going on for a century before 9/11.

As explaining the natural world is not the purpose of religion, which is basically to provide guidance to help people live their lives...

That's a relatively modern view. Following the Enlightenment and the scientific successes of the industrial revolution and beyond, people realised that the mainstream religious texts do a very bad job of predicting or explaining the natural world. So, the popular view these days is that it's okay to pretend that the bible doesn't say things like pi=3, or ignore it when it does. The bible is still held by many to be morally authoritative, though. And that requires that one similarly ignores the many odious immoral examples that the bible documents, both from God himself and from his most valued followers and prophets. The usual excuse is that "people had different morals back in ancient times, and they were appropriate back then, when the bible was written". So, free pass to slavery and giving your wife up to a rapist gang, and so on, as long as it happened in "biblical times" (although, having said that, people were still making arguments for racism based on the authority of the bible back in the time of the US Civil War era, and there are still people today who apologise for slavery by waving biblical verses).

 

[exchemist]

There are almost as many varieties of religion as there are people, so obviously there's a huge range of things that different people believe.

Scientology is a religion, even though it's plainly ludicrous - so much so that it's leadership keeps all the most insane bits hidden far away from new customers clients marks followers.

Scientifically literate religious people tend to cherry pick the parts of mainstream religions that mesh best with their own moral compasses, while ignoring the more unsavory bits and pieces, and the bits that are directly contradicted by science. People are very good at compartmentalising. And if you want to think of yourself as religious but you aren't impressed by the mainstream dogmas, you can always be a deist or adopt some kind of watered-down version of one of the mainstream faiths. Failing that, you can make up your own god to suit yourself.

You're right that science can't "rule out religious belief". It can't even rule out the possibility that one or more gods are real. It can, however, place rather strict limits on what those gods are capable of doing in the world, because the world looks essentially indistinguishable from how we'd expect it to look if there were no gods at all, as far as our science can tell.


He was doing that long before he went public with The God Delusion.

Only because mainstream Christians, for the most part, have stopped insisting that every verse in the bible must be literally true, at least insofar as it talks about facts about the material world that are checkable.

We can argue the extent to which American evangelical Christianities are "mainstream", of course. Seems to me like they are mainstream in the United States, given the percentages of self-declared American Christians who identify that way.

There was no "New Atheism" initiative, as such. Coincidentally, four best-selling books were written withing several years of one another. At the relevant time, the world was also dealing with the evils of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and the fallout from 9/11. It meant that a lot of people were receptive to arguments against religious extremism of all stripes. Once you're tackling religious extremism, the logical next step is to question the foundations of such.

The battle against Creationism and, later, the Intelligent Design trojan horse, had been going on for a century before 9/11.

That's a relatively modern view. Following the Enlightenment and the scientific successes of the industrial revolution and beyond, people realised that the mainstream religious texts do a very bad job of predicting or explaining the natural world. So, the popular view these days is that it's okay to pretend that the bible doesn't say things like pi=3, or ignore it when it does. The bible is still held by many to be morally authoritative, though. And that requires that one similarly ignores the many odious immoral examples that the bible documents, both from God himself and from his most valued followers and prophets. The usual excuse is that "people had different morals back in ancient times, and they were appropriate back then, when the bible was written". So, free pass to slavery and giving your wife up to a rapist gang, and so on, as long as it happened in "biblical times" (although, having said that, people were still making arguments for racism based on the authority of the bible back in the time of the US Civil War era, and there are still people today who apologise for slavery by waving biblical verses).

Quantum theory is a "relatively modern view"in physics. Nobody suggests that is a reason to dismiss it.

But if you prefer to argue against religion as it was a couple of hundred years ago, rather than as it is today, feel free. It's certainly an easier target.

 

[James R]

I’m surprised it is legal to post the Ten Commandments in a state school. Has this been tested in the courts?

Over and over again. It's been repeatedly ruled as unconstitutional due to breaching the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, and therefore illegal.

Even in the absence of the Bill of Rights, mandating that kind of thing is obviously discrimatory and intolerant of religious diversity.

The reason these kinds of laws keep getting passed is that the lawmakers who pass them know (or hope) that they will win them votes from the Christian Nationalist base. They pass the laws knowing full well that they will be declared invalid by the courts once somebody gets a case up. The point is the political theatre of it all. It's also a signal to the Base that, these days in the United States, religious intolerance is acceptable and normal, along with xenophobia, homophobia and racism.

The usual caveats apply here: not all Americans. Not all states. Not all lawmakers. etc. But while MAGA holds the reins of power, this shit will keep happening, have no doubt about it.

 

[James R]

Quantum theory is a "relatively modern view"in physics. Nobody suggests that is a reason to dismiss it.

I didn't suggest that modern changes to what mainstream theists tend to believe about their holy texts provide any reason for dismissing the beliefs themselves.

However, it is worth noting that while the believers may have changed over the centuries, the religious texts that form the bedrock of their faiths have not - at least not since the early days of the various religions.

What people believe about their religions is influenced by the zeitgeist of the times and the social traditions that have evolved in spite of the holy texts and the official dogmas.

Mainly, though, I was just pointing out that certain parts of the bible (to be specific), have been gradually relegated from the status of "God's truth" to "metaphor" and "allegory" and "somewhat inaccurate" as science has kept advancing and making those parts untenable for the believer who has a more rounded education that includes subjects other than theology.

But if you prefer to argue against religion as it was a couple of hundred years ago, rather than as it is today, feel free. It's certainly an easier target.

It hasn't changed that much.

 

[exchemist]

I didn't suggest that modern changes to what mainstream theists tend to believe about their holy texts provide any reason for dismissing the beliefs themselves.

However, it is worth noting that while the believers may have changed over the centuries, the religious texts that form the bedrock of their faiths have not - at least not since the early days of the various religions.

What people believe about their religions is influenced by the zeitgeist of the times and the social traditions that have evolved in spite of the holy texts and the official dogmas.

Mainly, though, I was just pointing out that certain parts of the bible (to be specific), have been gradually relegated from the status of "God's truth" to "metaphor" and "allegory" and "somewhat inaccurate" as science has kept advancing and making those parts untenable for the believer who has a more rounded education that includes subjects other than theology.

It hasn't changed that much.

James, at the risk of repeating myself I think three points are relevant here.

Firstly, I've pointed out on many occasions on this forum that taking parts of the Old Testament as allegorical is a practice going right back to Origen in ~250AD. There is nothing new or recent about this. The practice predates science by well over a thousand years.

Secondly I have also repeatedly reminded people of what allegory is, viz. a literary device, conveying a message by means of storytelling. So reading parts of the OT as allegorical does not involve downgrading its meaning, as you seem to imply. It in no way implies that scripture read allegorically is no longer "God's truth". That would be the conclusion only a fundie would draw - or, I suppose, someone without an understanding of literature.

Thirdly - and admittedly this is a somewhat more arcane point - I have also explained that the older branches of Christianity are not sola scriptura. The bishops of the church have authority to teach doctrine (cf. magisterium: magister = teacher), the idea being that by their ordination they are the spiritual descendants of the Apostles who were given this authority by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. So the fact that the text of scripture has not changed (well actually it does flex a tiny bit, depending on the translation) does not preclude evolution in interpretations of the text and the derivation of doctrines from it. Again, this is not new.

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you think we can confidently rule out the existence of a loving God, at this point? Or, at least, an all-powerful loving God?

Allowing suffering is certainly inconsistent with the notion of a loving omnipotent god. Isn't it?

Eh. Humans are loving of wildlife and conserved biomes, yet it requires culling to keep them that way. I'd say those conservationists are "loving".
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" and all that. I'd certainly say the deer are not in a position to pass judgement on the motives of humans.

"But an all-powerful God could just not have them over-breed in the first place" you say? That speaks to God's motives though. Ostensibly, he gave humans free will - which means he is deliberately choosing a hands-off approach, perhaps he is choosing a hands off approach to Earth wildlife. We don't know, but we are not in a position to claim we do.


More to -the-point, I think "loving versus not-loving" is a false dichotomy, and pointless to argue. Do those who believe in God literally and explicitly believe that an all-loving God can do no harm? That's pretty constraining on a god. The point is: who cares what their answer to that might be - why try to solve a mystery through the eyes of a believer? I would prefer to look at the hypothetical more objectively.

I mean, if you really want to torpedo an all-powerful God, it's much simpler than that: the old hack "Can an all-powerful God create a rock so massive even he cannot lift it?" It's the same conundrum - assigning absolutes and then proving those absolutes are illogical. But it's vacuous as far as actual analysis.

 

[foghorn]

If only Jesus had told the people to read the small print before signing up.

I took what JamesR said, as how the Christians view their God.
A loving God.
The bible has Jesus saying...
John 6:38
“For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”

 

[Sarkus]

If you're omniscient, surely all choices you make are deliberate.

To do something deliberately, one needs to deliberate between possibilities. The one you pick, after such deliberation, is the one you do deliberately.
God, if omniscient, already knows everything: past, present, future. There are no such "choices" in the sense of deliberating. Everything God does is an eternal act of will. He doesn't go "I haven't decided" to "I have decided" the way we humans might. He has intent, which is eternal and immutable, and he wills this intent into being. This was argued by Augustine of Hippo, one of the foundational architects of classical theism.

So using words such as "deliberate" is not really applicable to God's actions in the same sense that they are to ours. It describes a human process, which we may project onto God when interpreting his actions through the human condition.

 

[Sarkus]

Do you think we can confidently rule out the existence of a loving God, at this point? Or, at least, an all-powerful loving God?

One can be confident of pretty much anything. Some people are confident that the earth is flat, for example.

Allowing suffering is certainly inconsistent with the notion of a loving omnipotent god. Isn't it?

No.
We've covered this in another thread, though. Is there any point in repeating it?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

God is atemporal they say. If you ask it, AI says it is also atemporal, in short because it collapses sequential time into instant statistical synthesis….its words, not mine. Logic might dictate that perhaps AI and God are one and the same, a machine. Simulated universe guys might like that.

 

[Pinball1970]

is not really applicable to God's actions

We are guessing on this though, no one has explicitly said what god is yet, beyond the Biblical god that is.

 

[DaveC426913]

God is atemporal they say. If you ask it, AI says it is also atemporal, in short because it collapses sequential time into instant statistical synthesis….its words, not mine. Logic might dictate that perhaps AI and God are one and the same, a machine. Simulated universe guys might like that.

Er. Two very different manifestations of atemporal there - essentially opposites. One means eternal, the other means instant.

 

[Pinball1970]

Ok we are back to god again which is good because we will end up round the houses on religion.

At no point has anyone defined a god yet or given any foundation on which to do so.

Forget whether he is evil or not for now, a deist god, a creator.

Is the argument, the universe is here so a god could have put it here? Playing devil's advocate?

Or started the BB or some other physics? Is that it?

 

[Sarkus]

We are guessing on this though, no one has explicitly said what god is yet, beyond the Biblical god that is.

Fair. I was referring to the god of classical theism. But your question goes to why I am an agnostic atheist: people can say much about god, but how do they know it is true? The answer, i think, is a foundation of faith, which I don't seem to have.

One also has to be careful not to create a caricature, or a naive, simplistic version, for the intention of knocking it down so as to support one's non-belief.

 

[Pinball1970]

Fair. I was referring to the god of classical theism. But your question goes to why I am an agnostic atheist: people can say much about god, but how do they know it is true? The answer, i think, is a foundation of faith, which I don't seem to have.

One also has to be careful not to create a caricature, or a naive, simplistic version, for the intention of knocking it down so as to support one's non-belief.

No no, I know we are all atheist or close to it regarding Biblical claims.
I want the best devils advocate for a creator god existing. Once I ditched Yhwh and Jesus I did not consider being a deist, I focused on the Bible and Christianity for a time. What it meant, if anything.

 

[Pinball1970]

Just to add, I know absolutely nothing about deism, where it came from, it's development.
All I know is Einstein hinted at it and Thomas Jefferson possibly?

 

[Sarkus]

Ok we are back to god again which is good because we will end up round the houses on religion.

At no point has anyone defined a god yet or given any foundation on which to do so.

Forget whether he is evil or not for now, a deist god, a creator.

Is the argument, the universe is here so a god could have put it here? Playing devil's advocate?

Or started the BB or some other physics? Is that it?

The vast majority of religions have God as the "ultimate cause". Whether this means God caused the BB, or was the cause of the cause of the BB, or whether reality is a manifestation of God, etc, it all seems to come down to being the sole necessary essence.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument, in a basic form:
P1 - Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2 - The universe began to exist.
C - Therefore, the universe has a cause.
By regression one can then conclude that therefore the ultimate cause must be something that had no cause.

So one starts to build an idea for something that religions call god/God.

 

[Pinball1970]

The vast majority of religions have God as the "ultimate cause". Whether this means God caused the BB, or was the cause of the cause of the BB, or whether reality is a manifestation of God, etc, it all seems to come down to being the sole necessary essence.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument, in a basic form:
P1 - Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2 - The universe began to exist.
C - Therefore, the universe has a cause.
By regression one can then conclude that therefore the ultimate cause must be something that had no cause.

So one starts to build an idea for something that religions call god/God.

I don't know what that is, never read up on it but I have heard WLC debate using this EDIT: It reminds me of Aquinas

 

[DaveC426913]

At no point has anyone defined a god yet or given any foundation on which to do so.

A supernatural entity. Let's start there.

Can anybody provide any evidence that any supernatural entity exists at all? No matter the flavour?

If you tell me you believe in unicorns, does it make sense for me to require you to specify white unicorns or black unicorns before I can bring my skeptic's guns to-bear? My first question will be "Do you have an argument that any unicorns of any colour exist?"