A.I. proves God exists...

[James R]

(continued...)

I disagree on that constraint. I do not interpret "all loving" to mean "virtual stasis, immortality and zoo-paradise for all individuals".

Maybe "all loving" means not creating a universe in the first place. Continuing that train of thought: why would a god who is perfect and complete in himself need or want to create anything in the first place? That would imply that the god felt somehow incomplete.

Imagine if human shepherds had godlike powers/technology. Would we choose to keep deer perfectly fed, perfectly away from all danger, no hormones, no rutting, no competition, no normal lives?

You're loading the question with the words "normal lives". You're assuming that the deer, given the choice, would prefer to live as we observe them to live in the wild here on the actual Earth.

If we were the ones deciding what the best "normal life" would be for a deer, it seems to me that it would be kinder to eliminate the dangers, the struggle for food, the pain and suffering, etc. for them. Unless we could somehow tell that they would want those things - which I suppose we could if we had godlike powers.

Would humans like to be kept fed and away from danger, ideally? I think most would jump at the chance.

Would that be loving for the deer? They wouldn't be deer anymore, they'd be living museum artifacts.

If you were guaranteed three hearty meals every day, without having to do anything for them, would that make you a living museum artifact?

If God gave us free will, would he then ensure we have no reason for it?

Free will is just the ability to choose to do what you want to do, from moment to moment. What kind of reason for it are you looking for?

No. All loving does not mean we become living museum artifacts.

Does it mean World Wars, Nepalese floods burying villages full of people, people dying of Ebola etc.?

I think you are putting too much stock in the literaltily of "all-loving" as believers purport.

Our starting point for this discussion was to consider what a god who was "all-loving" would do. I don't believe in any gods, as you know. I put no stock in them. I merely pointed out the inconsistency between any god who is claimed to be powerful and Good while allowing suffering.

It is also conceivable that he wants more than a living museum.

Why would he want anything? Not perfect as he is, already?

You should ask them.

I have. You should be aware of this. I've had many discussions with many theists on this forum alone over the course of 20+ years.

I think it is possible that you are making a literal, simplistic, black and white interpretation of what they mean.

In my experience, most of them haven't thought the issue through. The problem is not that I can't understand what they are saying.

As rational analysts, we should not fall prey to the same error that believers too often make about science: a simplistic, black and white interpretation of what is really a nuanced issue.

Bring the nuance, then, if you like. I'm all ears.

Yes.

Why do you doubt this? Above, you were prepared to accept an equally implausible notion from believers about an "all-loving" God.

I specified "sensible" believers this time around, who are a subset of "believers".

Now, for someone reason, you've decided to push back on what believers might reasonably think.

I've been pushing back on what believers might reasonably think for a very long time, now.

I harken back to my scenario of humans with fabulous technology to protect a deer population from all discomfort, including itself and its own nature. Would we? I dontvthink we would for the simple reason that they would cease to be deer.

Nobody says we created the deer in the first place, though. More specifically, we didn't create them while intending them to suffer and struggle.

Can an omnipotent and all-loving god logically create a species so protected from all harm while still allowing to any agency at all?

Can't an omnipotent god logically create whatever it wants to create (logical contradictions aside)?

Or are you suggesting that agency somehow prevents people from being protected from arbitrary suffering and harms? (To be fair, this is the kind of "suffering comes from free will and original sin" line that Christians often run with.)

Or would such a paradise remove the very thing that makes humans human?

Your assumption seems to be that God necessarily had to create humans.

My proposal is that believers are capable of seeing that "all loving" is a nuanced concept, and therefore not incompatible with the world as we see it.

You still haven't explained why you think that is, to my satisfaction. Maybe you've satisfied yourself.

IOW, believers very likely accept that all-loving doesn't mean no death and no suffering.

What's the point of death? Why create death?

 

[exchemist]

Can I bring you back to the "Adam and Eve" thing in the US? Also "Noah's arc?"
40-60% of Americans with a population of 320 million. That's a lot more than 12million.

Yes but we have already been through that. See post 161 et seq.

 

[exchemist]

Why don't I ever come across these majority Christians who accept Evolution, BBT, contradictions in the Bible they accept it, historical inaccuracies in the Bible the accept it?
JW in town Manchester, watchtower creationist garbage, ranting megaphone Christians handing out creationist garbage, YouTube science channels bombarded by creationist nonsense posters, DI and AIG garbage,19 years of it for me! Even on here who did we get? Kermos, Trek Lucito and Olga........and you.
I think you deserve some sort of prize as do I, against all the odds I stumble on the Bible literalists again and again.
Once in a blue moon we get a you, despite the odds.

Talk to any priest. But if you talk instead to an evangelical Hot Prot, or some doddery old biddy, in the pew, they may well give you the creationist spiel.

Don't forget it is the people at the extremes who make the most noise. Why would somebody reasonable come to a forum like this to make a song and dance? Of course you are going to get the cranks. And most people answering questionnaires know little science and have probably never given the issue of evolution any thought, in the context of their faith.

 

[exchemist]

Some of them are even Catholics.

Yes of course. I refer both you and Pinball1970 to post 161 et seq.

 

[Sarkus]

Thanks. Yes I admit I was speaking of metaphysics only as it pertains to the physical status of a deity, not its broader defined meaning. I guess I was addressing claims that I often hear, where supernatural and metaphysical are conflated. But yes, one sort of believer could certainly say something like "God is a physical phenomenon entirely of the physicalist view of our universe (akin to some unthinkably advanced alien who can now run all of spacetime) and in no way supernatural." This would be a metaphysical (monist and physicalist) claim, while rejecting any supernatural one.

That would be a scientific claim, would it not? Any deviation from the natural laws would, presumably, be observable? It would possibly be considered supernatural as well, as this "advanced alien" stands outside (i.e. who can "run" all of spacetime) of the natural laws by which we determine who/what is "supernatural"? But I understand the gist of what you're trying to get at.

 

[foghorn]

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

When it comes to that question, I can only go with what a believer says a god does.

For instance, 12 years ago Pope Francis made a statement…

“[God] created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive at their fullness of being.“

To me that suggests a non-human intelligence “creating beings”.

Whatever this ‘thing’ is, it wanted to assure these beings ‘he’ would be continuously be around…

“at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality“

Is this a Catholic teaching to be believed by the followers?
Pope Francis 2014

[God] created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive at their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became what we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things. ...The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.

 

[Sarkus]

It more or less does. There are plausible naturalistic explanations of how the universe could have originated.

At best we can come up with untestable ideas about how, and the best of those simply push the question of causation/creation one step further back, from creating "the universe" to creating "whatever caused the universe".

It's a work in progress. It's okay not to know everything right now. Better to admit you don't know than to pretend you do, if you ask me.

Sure, but you said that physics removes "the idea that a god is necessary for the universe to exist."
"I don't know" isn't removal of that idea. It is merely acceptance that one can does not know if it is necessary or not. Removal is when you say "it can not be". Not knowing doesn't do that.

I doubt that your philosophy is in a position to tell physics what is outside its scope, as far as the origins of the universe are concerned. Perhaps you can explain.

Yeah, it pretty much is when it comes to anything outside of the closed system that is the foundation of science. As is yours, I'd suggest. Anyone who has a reasonable grasp of science should understand the limitations of science, and what is outside of its scope. One of the central roles of philosophy is trying to address the questions that science/physics alone cannot settle. Science is limited to what is observable. It can come up with ideas beyond that, but they'll remain untestable, unverifiable. When it comes to the origins of the universe, we can not observe from before T=0. We can come up with ideas, some may feel more satisfactory than others, but they are untestable. Science needs empirical access. Absent that, you're not talking about science. And this need for empirical access is a matter of philosophy.

It provides plausible naturalistic mechanisms that obviate the need for a supernatural creator.

But it can't rule out the supernatural creator, because those naturalistic mechanisms can not be tested. That's the point. And you said physics does rule it out. It doesn't. It may be that even back then the possibility that there may be naturalistic mechanisms was sufficient for you to not believe, but that would seem to more a case of "we don't know, so why believe either, and if I'm going to prefer one, let's go with Occam's razor" type of thinking.
But the point is that physics does not rule out the "supernatural" creator. Physics/science simply can not investigate it.

It doesn't do that - yet.

Yet you claimed that you stopped believing because physics removed "the idea that a god is necessary for the universe to exist."
Not knowing is not the same as removing. It remains an option that god is a necessary being. Having alternative ideas that we also can not prove doesn't mean that god is no longer necessary. If god is necessary then that will be true regardless of what we might otherwise think. It would mean that everything else we thought might be the case that removed god from being necessary is wrong, even if we don't know that they are wrong.

How does religion show that there is a necessity at the root of existence?

You'd have to ask them. Afterall, I never said it did, only that physics doesn't remove the idea that (a) there is, and (b) that it is god.

Right on!

Is this you responding to: "How does physics, for example, show that there is not a necessity at the root of existence? Answer: it doesn't", or are you misattributing my quote as if answering your question of "How does religion show that there is a necessity at the root of existence?" ???

I'm not so sure. An unevidenced god doesn't seem like something I should spend any time worrying about. YMMV.

I was brought up thinking God was relatively important in our lives. The fact that it was merely "unevidenced" by me put me in the position of "doubting Thomas" (John 20: 24-29). I thought I would eventually come to the evidence, as Thomas did. Realising that God was outside the scope of science, and of my philosophical positions (at the time and now), put it beyond merely a lack of evidence. Hence that being what "tipped me over the edge", so to speak.

I imagine that there could be evidence that would convince me there is a powerful god (or gods). Not sure what it might be, but the onus is not on me to provide it, is it? I'm open minded on the question.

As am I, and I, too, could not describe what evidence might convince me. It's a case, I think, of "I will know it when I see it", but even then I might question whether it has some alternative explanation, not necessarily to the evidence, but to why I might consider it to be evidence of god.

The whole point of deism is that the god is "unknowable". The problem with it, from our point of view as lowly human beings, is that the deist god is indistinguishable from no god, as far as I can tell.

Yes, but being indistinguishable does not rule it out. That's the point. Maybe it's the conclusion your younger self reached, jumping from "it's indistinguishable" to "it's therefore ruled out", but if so then that is fallacious logic. I am not doubting your conclusion of "not believing", though, and that it is not the most rational position for us, just the idea that physics rules out a necessary god. "I don't know" does not rule it out.

 

[Pinball1970]

The problem with you saying that logical positivists claim there is no metaphysics is that that in itself is a metaphysical claim. It's more that they don't think metaphysical claims are meaningful because they have no means of verification in the natural world. There is a difference between metaphysical and supernatural, though, that even logical positivists would accept, even if ultimately both are untestable. Metaphysics are claims that puport to describe reality, whereas the supernatural is a claim that describes an entity, or force, that exists outside of the natural world.
So it's wrong to say that the metaphysical is "something outside of the physical universe" when it is a description about the very nature of that physical universe, albeit one that can not be tested: e.g. everything that exists has a sufficient reason. This is a claim about existence, not about something outside of existence.

When it comes to God, at least the classical theist, it is very much in that metaphysical space, albeit with some consequences that fall within the "supernatural" (i.e. His interactions with the natural world, such as miracles). To the logical positivist, they're both beyond empirical investigation, though.

My point was that there is a category difference between "supernatural" and "metaphysical", and that one should not lump discussion of God into the mere supernatural, even if ultimately you reject both buckets as meaningless.

That's a wow because I do not have philosophy in my toolbox and philosophy comes into this a lot.

 

[Pinball1970]

Any deviation from the natural laws would, presumably, be observable?

Just on that point, science tends to look for new science these days when something odd crops up. Galaxies not doing what they are supposed to we get Dark matter and MOND, the Universe expanding and accelerating= Dark energy, Muon G 2 wobble= whatever that was.
So the evidence that a theist would demand of me would have to be Biblical, better than a burning bush, more like a giant Jesus with angels, thunder lightning talking Aramaic Hebrew and English.
I am not being facetious, it would take something like this globally so everyone agreed it happened.
Then I would spend the next few weeks verifying events and trying to work out if I had gone insane or not.

 

[Pinball1970]

Impressive exchange on this thread, we all have different views and are prodding each other a little bit but no one is getting burnt at the stake.
I think it helps that none of us are frothing ranting atheists (me 1990) or creationists.

 

[exchemist]

Impressive exchange on this thread, we all have different views and are prodding each other a little bit but no one is getting burnt at the stake.
I think it helps that none of us are frothing ranting atheists (me 1990) or creationists.

Yes, it has gone many pages without degenerating and a fair bit of useful information has been exchanged.

 

[James R]

At best we can come up with untestable ideas about how...

I'm not convinced that's the best we can come up with, and you haven't made any argument for it being the best we can come up with, so far.

... and the best of those simply push the question of causation/creation one step further back, from creating "the universe" to creating "whatever caused the universe".

One possibility, of course, is that "whatever caused the universe" was not created.

Sure, but you said that physics removes "the idea that a god is necessary for the universe to exist."

I was talking to Pinball at the time. I wrote: "Well, it did for me, personally, by removing the idea that a god is necessary for the universe to exist."

That is, I was telling Pinball that physics (among other things) helped to remove the idea from my mind (hence "personally") that a god was necessary for the universe to exist.

Will you permit me to have my own thoughts and come to my own conclusions? Or will you pedantically insist on jumping down my throat every time you think you've caught me out in an error?

Why do you feel the need to do that all the time?

"I don't know" isn't removal of that idea.

Going from "I think a God must have created the universe" to "I think physics doesn't require that any god created the universe" is the removal of an idea.

I don't know why you feel the need to be so intrusive and belligerent all the time. Are you like this with everyone in your life?

Anyone who has a reasonable grasp of science should understand the limitations of science, and what is outside of its scope.

Strange, then, that so many experts in the philosophy of science don't seem to have reached a consensus on the matter yet. Oh well. I guess you know best. Maybe you should tell them.

One of the central roles of philosophy is trying to address the questions that science/physics alone cannot settle. Science is limited to what is observable. It can come up with ideas beyond that, but they'll remain untestable, unverifiable.

Most major scientific theories involve entities that are not observable - not in any direct sense. Science infers or assumes that its theoretical entities correspond in specific ways to observable outcomes (e.g. results of experiments or direct observations of the natural world).

I don't disagree with you that the scope of philosophy is different to the scope of science.

When it comes to the origins of the universe, we can not observe from before T=0. We can come up with ideas, some may feel more satisfactory than others, but they are untestable.

Why do you think they are untestable?

And if they are untestable now, do you think they will remain untestable forever? Why?

Science needs empirical access.

How do you know science can't have empirical access to whatever it was that caused the universe (assuming it has a cause)?

But it can't rule out the supernatural creator, because those naturalistic mechanisms can not be tested.

Nothing can rule out a supernatural creator. But ruling it out is placing the onus on the wrong party. The onus of proof rightly lies with those who claim there is a supernatural creator, not with those who say there isn't one.

That's the point. And you said physics does rule it out. It doesn't.

It did for me. Among other things. Like I said.

It may be that even back then the possibility that there may be naturalistic mechanisms was sufficient for you to not believe...

My moving from theism to atheism was not based on just one thing. I said that before. I doubt I would have changed my mind purely on the basis of a possibility of a naturalistic mechanism for the universe starting. In fact, now that I think back on it, I'm fairly sure I remained a believer for a while despite having that piece of knowledge.

... but that would seem to more a case of "we don't know, so why believe either, and if I'm going to prefer one, let's go with Occam's razor" type of thinking.

We don't decide what we believe, Sarkus. Belief doesn't work like that.

Certainly, I think the Occam's razor argument carries weight. Given the choice between two mechanisms behind the universe (God and naturalistic processes) and one (naturalistic processes alone), it makes sense to choose the most parsimonious explanation, all else being equal. Not multiplying entities unnecessarily is what Occam is all about.

But the point is that physics does not rule out the "supernatural" creator.

What could rule out a supernatural creator? I can't think of anything. Can you?

Physics/science simply can not investigate it.

There's no evidence that there's anything supernatural to investigate, so it seems to me we don't need to worry about that until there is.

Yet you claimed that you stopped believing because physics removed "the idea that a god is necessary for the universe to exist."

Yup. Because of that and some other reasons, one of which I also mentioned.

Not knowing is not the same as removing.

I was talking about my belief in a god. Beliefs aren't knowledge, Sarkus. Believing is not the same thing as knowing. Believing doesn't require knowing.

It remains an option that god is a necessary being.

If that's an option for you, you're very welcome to it.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Having alternative ideas that we also can not prove doesn't mean that god is no longer necessary.

Nobody has proved that god was ever necessary.

If god is necessary then that will be true regardless of what we might otherwise think.

Obviously.

It would mean that everything else we thought might be the case that removed god from being necessary is wrong, even if we don't know that they are wrong.

Yes. That follows from your hypothetical.

You'd have to ask them.

I have, on numerous occasions. I have always found the answers to be unsatisfactory. I suppose you have, too.

Afterall, I never said it did, only that physics doesn't remove the idea that (a) there is, and (b) that it is god.

Okay. So, now that you've said it repeatedly a bunch of times, are you satisfied that you've adequately communicated your opinion to everybody who is reading this thread? Or do you want to repeat yourself again?

Is this you responding to: "How does physics, for example, show that there is not a necessity at the root of existence? Answer: it doesn't", or are you misattributing my quote as if answering your question of "How does religion show that there is a necessity at the root of existence?" ???

Yes. One of those.

I was brought up thinking God was relatively important in our lives.

You can take the boy out of Catholicism, but you can't take Catholicism out of the boy.

The fact that it was merely "unevidenced" by me put me in the position of "doubting Thomas" (John 20: 24-29). I thought I would eventually come to the evidence, as Thomas did. Realising that God was outside the scope of science, and of my philosophical positions (at the time and now), put it beyond merely a lack of evidence. Hence that being what "tipped me over the edge", so to speak.

Thanks for sharing. (I mean that sincerely, by the way, even though other parts of this post are a little flippant.)

I'm a bit puzzled, though. If you realised that God was outside the scope of science, then one way you could have gone was to reason that science could never disprove the existence of the God. In that case, would it not be open to you to just keep on believing in the unfalsifiable God? In your circumstance, maintaining your god belief would be entirely compatible with accepting all of science, would it not?

Why did you let go of the god belief, then?

As am I, and I, too, could not describe what evidence might convince me. It's a case, I think, of "I will know it when I see it", but even then I might question whether it has some alternative explanation, not necessarily to the evidence, but to why I might consider it to be evidence of god.

One argument that I think is a good one is this: if God is omniscient then God knows exactly what it would take to make me believe in him. And if he is also all-powerful (or just very powerful), then he could easily make whatever was necessary happen to cause me to become convinced about his existence. And yet, apparently, that God is content to let me go right on not believing.

Seems then, that if that God exists, he doesn't mind that I don't believe in him. In fact, it could be that it is part of his plan that I be a non-believer.

So need to worry about Pascal's wager then, as far as I can tell.

Yes, but being indistinguishable does not rule it out. That's the point. Maybe it's the conclusion your younger self reached, jumping from "it's indistinguishable" to "it's therefore ruled out", but if so then that is fallacious logic.

I didn't say that rules out the possibility that god exists. Seems like you're not content to catch my current self out in an error. You also now want to try to catch my younger self out in an error, too. And if that means making up fantasies about what views I held in the past, you're willing to go there. You should think about stopping with that kind of bullshit. But, based on past performance, I don't expect you will.

I am not doubting your conclusion of "not believing", though...

Well, that's a relief. A weight off my shoulders. For a minute there, I thought you were disapproving.

 

[DaveC426913]

DaveC:

I think I've lost the thread of our conversation.

I think I sort of lost the thread when you said our biomes have done just fine. The does seem germane to my analogy between humans shepherding deer and god shepherding humans.

It might be beneficial for us humans to preserve the current biome,

It might be. But that is human-level thinking, not deer-level thinking.
Again: deer can't understand our intentions. They may think us evil - even though we want what we think is best for them (because we love them).

but if we were to go extinct I'm sure the biome will go on just fine without our help.

The deer probably won't think so.

The parallel being: if a loving God let us extinct ourselves, we might consider that unloving.
A loving God may consider our existence - including free will - to be the ultimate act of love.

Why is extinction bad, objectively?

I put this back on you. You said biomes "did just fine" for 2.5 billion years.
What do you mean by "fine"? I assume you mean "existed". Which is good for the biome, right?
So, by your own assignation of god/bad, extincton of that biome would be bad.

Objectively? You tell me. Can a biome existing when it might otherwise cease to exist be considered "fine"?

Okay. And so...? (You seem to be trying to argue a point, but I'm not sure what it is.)

It is simply a spurious example of a reason why God might want to us to through this mortality - because we become God. One suggestion of how the end justifies the means. The point of it is that we humans cannot possibly understand that with our limited senses.

I don't think we can know much about any dinosaur morality that might have existed (or not).

I am certain we can.
Are you suggesting that dinosaurs might have the capacity to to understand moral actions from immoral actions? (Not figurately, I mean literally).

That kind of ostensible creator is very different from the Abrahamic god, then. That god has a lot to say, reportedly, about what is moral and what isn't.

Moral for humans.

I posit (above) that an ostensible creator of the universe does is beyond our ability to judge. We would need to know the facts, and we don't.

If the plan - whatever is it - includes a lot of arbitrary and useless pain and suffering, then it doesn't strike me as the plan a loving god would implement.

What if it isn't arbitrary or useless? Where did those words come from?

I think introducing time travel scenarios and the like is taking us quite far away from whatever point it is that we are disagreeing about. Pardon me if I skip this particular hypothetical for the time being.

I'm simply suggesting a fanciful way God might have motive and action that we can;t possibly understand that are - ultimately - in our best interst.

When you say "superior entity", are you envisaging moral superiority, or just greater capacity to implement its will?

Is eternal, can see beginning and end of time, etc. etc.

A development manager runs a project that takes 13.7 weeks to complete. An unskilled temp is hired on day 13.6, sees one screen of code and criticizes how the project is going. Is the temp's take on the project equal to let alone superior to the project manager's? Is the temp is any position to argue it's all wrong?

None of the major religions portray gods who consistently demonstrate moral superiority to human beings, as far as I am aware.

You would have to know their motives to make such an assessment.

What motive would a loving god have for making a world in which pain and suffering occur regularly, extinction happens as a matter of course, and sentient beings are in a constant struggle for life, often in direct competition for resources with other sentient beings?

Because the alternatives are a zoo or non-existence?

The best you seem to be able to come up with is "God works in mysterious ways. Who are we to question?"

While that certainly sounds banal, does that mean it is invalid for that reason alone?

No. This is our point of disagreement, as I understand it. The result I arrive at is that if there's a god that runs this world, it can't be a loving god. The result you arrive at, apparently, is that there could be a loving god that allows death, destruction, suffering, and pain. Holocausts. Wars. Rape. Child abuse. People dying over and over from disease, hunger, disaster, etc., many times through no fault of their own.

Yes. I think your interpretation of a loving god is simplistic.

A parallel ... simplicism ... for believers might be something like "You expect the human eye to just spontaneous develop, perfectly working from pure chance alone?? Poppycock!"

They dismiss it by simplifying to an absurd cartoon of the real story. I see that to be what you are doing.

You still want to argue that a god that allows all of the aforementioned evils could be a loving god, at the end of the day?

"Evils"?

Let's unpack that.
Is it evil for conservationists to cull deer populations?
OK, what if they didn't?
What if, instead, they let the deer overrun the habitat and extinct themselves via disease and starvation?
So, not evil?

"Loving" does not mean "zoo".
Part of normal life is competition, striving, and yes, death.



Another, softer take: does a parent to lets their kid be stabbed with a vaccination needle (the big one , with all the needles at once) get classified as "evil" because he hurt (or let be hurt) the child? The child cries. The parent was responsible. So, is the parent evil? Must the parent let the child go unvaccinated in order to qualify as "all-loving"?

What motives would justify all the suffering?

There is a story out there (actually, many) where an artificial mind or alien is programmed to love and care for a bunch of humans. It takes its programming literally, and protects them from all harm. Ultimately, in various versions, the humans are prisoners in padded cells and are stopped from any activity that might possibly cause a sprained wrist, etc. They prefer to off themselves rather than live in that hell.

I guess I am asserting that the optimum state for humans includes need, pursuit, suffering and death. Otherwise we stop being human.

That idea, too, is very far removed from what the most popular mainstream religions have to say on the matter. They claim that their gods have told us humans, in no uncertain terms, exactly what is good and what is bad.

What is good and bad for humans, not for God.

But a double standard applies when it comes to actions of the gods themselves. They get to behave badly. Do what I say, not what I do.

Erroneous application. A double standard only apples to equals.

I am a fresh-faced paid intern. I don't get paid for my lunch hour.
You are a VP, paid in six figures, on-call ngoht and weekends, yet you don't clock out for your lunch.
Double standard? No. We are not the same.

Clearly, I can't. You seem to be arguing (and I appreciate that you might be playing devil's advocate)

I certainly am. I hope that is obvious.

Once again, I find the argument that "a loving God seems illogical or paradoxical" is not an argument of its objective existence. We don't get to choose.

that some ultimate end justifies the morally questionable means that lead (eventually) to it.

That is not inconsistent with my views, yes.

Note that "morally questionable" does not means "immoral"; it means "we question it because we don't know the whole picture".

See example above, with mommy getting Junior vaccinated.
"Mommy why did you let that man stab me and make me cry? Don't you love me?"
A toddler does not understand vaccinations and what they mean to his continued existence.

 

[DaveC426913]

cont'd...

All humans are self-interested, to some extent, so none are "all-loving". But humans have to be self-interested because we all have needs that cannot be satisfied from within. The same cannot be said of a powerful god, let alone an all-powerful one.

I disagree.
I don't find it impossible that an arbitrarily powerful entity chooses creation over oblivion. He deliberately creates (say) a universe. Then he deliberately creates life in it. But they are just puppets on his strings. So he grants them free will. In essence, he takes a piece of his godliness and imbues humans with it - the property of agency. It is uselss if he just continues to pull their strings. He may be able to but choose not to.

He has given us the "gift" of existence over non-existence.

BTW, deer have needs they cannot satisfy purely from within, as well. Their capacities, like ours, are limited. Gods' capacities, I am told, are not.

The trouble is, if you follow that logic of yours to its inevitable end, it leads right back to to oblivion.

An all-powerful God cannot get creative, curious or lonely. He satisfies all his own needs internally, therefore need do nothing. The logical outcome is an entity that hovers in the middle of non-space, with no firmament, no light, doing nothing but amusing himself with his own thoughts. Forever.

 

[DaveC426913]

cont'd...

(continued...)

Maybe "all loving" means not creating a universe in the first place. Continuing that train of thought: why would a god who is perfect and complete in himself need or want to create anything in the first place? That would imply that the god felt somehow incomplete.

Exactly. But that's your logic, based on your interpretation of what believers think all-loving means.

They are not here to defend or elucidate the possible nuances of their beliefs, so from where I stand this is hearsay. You need to take it back to them and ask "How can an all-loving God allow all this suffering?" I'm sure you have, but we haven't gotten to that clarificative part of the discusion.

You're loading the question with the words "normal lives". You're assuming that the deer, given the choice, would prefer to live as we observe them to live in the wild here on the actual Earth.

No. They do not know what is best for them. They do not know about overpopulation, starvation, and they do not know about controlled breeding. We must make that decision for them. We are put in that position because we want them to suffer the least.

If we were the ones deciding what the best "normal life" would be for a deer, it seems to me that it would be kinder to eliminate the dangers, the struggle for food, the pain and suffering, etc. for them. Unless we could somehow tell that they would want those things - which I suppose we could if we had godlike powers.

A zoo, then.

Would humans like to be kept fed and away from danger, ideally? I think most would jump at the chance.

A good question. But that is a short game, not a long game. How long would humans be happy in a zoo - with no motivation, no striving, no change. Because change brings uncertainty - uncertainty in your next meal, in your next sleeping bed, in your access to mates, etc.

Pretty sure humans would go insane in a zoo, given enough time and stagnation. (Didn't they do this experiment with mice? I believe they did. The mice went insane and started killing each other or going on hunger strikes. (Do I need a citation?))

If you were guaranteed three hearty meals every day, without having to do anything for them, would that make you a living museum artifact?

Taken to its logical extreme yes.

Free will is just the ability to choose to do what you want to do, from moment to moment.

Yes.

What kind of reason for it are you looking for?

I ... guess I'd better go back and follow that thread. Ultimately though - as I hinted before - I guess you could say it is God's gift of a siver of his own sentience - to observe the universe and ourselves. Still better than oblivion.

Does it mean World Wars, Nepalese floods burying villages full of people, people dying of Ebola etc.?

That, one might guess, is part of what God wants to find out, when he suppresses his omnipotence and omnisience.

Our starting point for this discussion was to consider what a god who was "all-loving" would do. I don't believe in any gods, as you know. I put no stock in them.

Agree, in case there's any doubt.

The only reason I am playing Devil's Advocate is because I think "I don't understand the motives of an all-loving God" is a fallacy of "argument by incredulity", which we disallow believers to invoke.

I merely pointed out the inconsistency between any god who is claimed to be powerful and Good while allowing suffering.

A parent will let their child get stabbed with a needle. Does that cause them to lose their all-loving badge?

Why would he want anything? Not perfect as he is, already?

Yes. Which is why the argument you are making about "all-loving" is clearly too simplistic.

I have. You should be aware of this. I've had many discussions with many theists on this forum alone over the course of 20+ years.

They are not here to defend themselves. I can only argue what you bring here.
And what you are bringing here, to my eye, appears as a back-and-white, cartoonish take on a loving God. (With respect: I do not mean it as an insult. If it's simplistic then that's what it is, that does not speak to your faculties. Hope that's obvious).

In my experience, most of them haven't thought the issue through. The problem is not that I can't understand what they are saying.

Presumably. Which raises the question why are we arguing it here? Can we agree "all-loving" makes as much sense as able to create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?

Bring the nuance, then, if you like. I'm all ears.

I specified "sensible" believers this time around, who are a subset of "believers".

I've been pushing back on what believers might reasonably think for a very long time, now.

Nobody says we created the deer in the first place, though. More specifically, we didn't create them while intending them to suffer and struggle.

Can't an omnipotent god logically create whatever it wants to create (logical contradictions aside)?

Or are you suggesting that agency somehow prevents people from being protected from arbitrary suffering and harms? (To be fair, this is the kind of "suffering comes from free will and original sin" line that Christians often run with.)

I sort of skipped this because I don't find ny fault with it.

Your assumption seems to be that God necessarily had to create humans.

What? No.

I mean, if the intent is to "gift" humans with a sliver of his agency (to see and do by intent rather than programming or puppet string) then it follows that he cannot then constrain their lives so they never face danger/change/adversity. We would lie around and eat and sleep and bonk, forever. Whatever that might be, it is not what humans are.


(Larry Niven wrote a short story called Bordered in Black, about a planet that was made as a human food farm for an alien race. The land was barren of anything, including trees. They had no technology, not even sticks. No clothes, nothing. They did three things: they ate "manna" (essentially, algae), they slept, and they bonked. And, after millions of year of neglect, they had filled the planet's continents virtually from shore to shore like a colossal black mold. It was one of the most horrifying images I have ever encountered in a story.)

You still haven't explained why you think that is, to my satisfaction. Maybe you've satisfied yourself.

Above. He wanted to make something new and gift it with will.

What's the point of death? Why create death?

It is simply the ultimate form of suffering. Once you head down the slippery slope of "do no harm at all", you inevitably arrive at "abolish death".

(The suffering from death is not necessarily the dead; it certainly affects the living).

 

[Pinball1970]

Why do you think they are untestable?

And if they are untestable now, do you think they will remain untestable forever? Why?

Just on the T=0 or even -1 and before, Roger Penrose developed a theory called CCC which predicted what he called "Hawking points" from a previous aeon. Its a cyclical model and is pretty out there but it is at least an attempt to look beyond the BB.
The claims were not well received from memory but he may give the community a shove to push boundaries back.

 

[Pinball1970]

Presumably. Which raises the question why are we arguing it here? Can we agree "all-loving" makes as much sense as able to create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?

It makes sense regarding the books with gods that give us rules and tell us to be nice, kind, respectful.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not convinced that's the best we can come up with, and you haven't made any argument for it being the best we can come up with, so far.

It's a logical conclusion from what science is. Science relies on empirical evidence. The universe is a closed system. This no evidence from the outside can be observed.

One possibility, of course, is that "whatever caused the universe" was not created.

Sure, but being a "possibility" does not rule out anything else that is "possible".

I was talking to Pinball at the time. I wrote: "Well, it did for me, personally, by removing the idea that a god is necessary for the universe to exist."

That is, I was telling Pinball that physics (among other things) helped to remove the idea from my mind (hence "personally") that a god was necessary for the universe to exist.

Okay. So what? It is wrong now as it was then.

Will you permit me to have my own thoughts and come to my own conclusions? Or will you pedantically insist on jumping down my throat every time you think you've caught me out in an error?

It's not about you, JamesR. It's about what you wrote. This isn't personal, so stop trying to make it so. If you feel that someone has not fully understood what you intended to mean, clarify by all means. But please stop trying to make it about something it isn't.

Why do you feel the need to do that all the time?

I respond to what is written. If you mean something else, or didn't accurately convey your thoughts ...?

Going from "I think a God must have created the universe" to "I think physics doesn't require that any god created the universe" is the removal of an idea.

Not logically it isn't. It is the addition of other possible ideas, not the removal of one.

I don't know why you feel the need to be so intrusive and belligerent all the time. Are you like this with everyone in your life?

Stop making it personal, JamesR. I have responded to what you wrote. The same as with everyone else. If you don't want to respond, because you find the questions or points one raises to be "intrusive and belligerent" then don't.

Strange, then, that so many experts in the philosophy of science don't seem to have reached a consensus on the matter yet. Oh well. I guess you know best. Maybe you should tell them.

You are making the fallacy of false precision. There are certainly some aspects where there is disagreement about the scope of science, but the scientific method requires observation. Absent that and you have... what? There is no disagreement in science as to that point.

Most major scientific theories involve entities that are not observable - not in any direct sense. Science infers or assumes that its theoretical entities correspond in specific ways to observable outcomes (e.g. results of experiments or direct observations of the natural world).

There's a category difference between entities that are theoretically observable but not yet able to be observed, and those for which observation is not possible.

Why do you think they are untestable?

Pre t=0 there is no changing of state that is observable. There would be at best be an image of the state at t=0. If there was change prior to t=o then there must have been the passage of time. Thus t=0 is a hard stop as to what is observable.
Anything we observe must be solely bound by the laws of our universe. At least per science.
It stands to reason that we can not observe that which is pre the start of time (as we know it) and that which does not follow the laws of our universe.
Hence, untestable.

And if they are untestable now, do you think they will remain untestable forever? Why?

Yes, they will forever remain untestable. Why? Because it follows from what science is, and its limitations.

How do you know science can't have empirical access to whatever it was that caused the universe (assuming it has a cause)?

Because the universe is a closed system. It is one of the assumptions of science. If that assumptions falls, all bets are off and science is no longer science. So science is defined (among other things) by that closed system. Pre-creation of that closed system is, well, outside of the closed system. Hence no empirical access.
At best one can have an image of the state at t=0. We can have ideas that might provide a match to the state at t=0, but we can never know whether it is the correct match.

Nothing can rule out a supernatural creator. But ruling it out is placing the onus on the wrong party. The onus of proof rightly lies with those who claim there is a supernatural creator, not with those who say there isn't one.

Agreed. But the situation here is that you, or at least your former self, ruled something out that even now you accept can not be ruled out. You claimed physics ruled it out, but it doesn't, as argued. Okay, it may have ruled out your "belief", but that wasn't physics doing that per se, but rather you, albeit informed by physics.

My moving from theism to atheism was not based on just one thing. I said that before. I doubt I would have changed my mind purely on the basis of a possibility of a naturalistic mechanism for the universe starting. In fact, now that I think back on it, I'm fairly sure I remained a believer for a while despite having that piece of knowledge.

We don't decide what we believe, Sarkus. Belief doesn't work like that.

That's worthy of another thread entirely. I don't entirely disagree, and I think such a core belief can highlight the psychological and other (genetic?) differences between believers and non-believers. But at this point, I'm not sure you can just state that we don't decide, and expect it to be left at that.

Certainly, I think the Occam's razor argument carries weight. Given the choice between two mechanisms behind the universe (God and naturalistic processes) and one (naturalistic processes alone), it makes sense to choose the most parsimonious explanation, all else being equal. Not multiplying entities unnecessarily is what Occam is all about.

Sure, but this is a matter of rationality, not possibility. Remember, this "discussion" is predicated on the idea that physics rules out a creator god, even if you have subsequently explained that that was not how what you said should have been interpreted.

What could rule out a supernatural creator? I can't think of anything. Can you?

No, as discussed with others here.

There's no evidence that there's anything supernatural to investigate, so it seems to me we don't need to worry about that until there is.

Well, there's plenty of claims that would be considered supernatural that are worthy of investigation. Ghosts, angels, and miracles, for example (to use things in the Bible, for example). This can at least help refute (or otherwise) certain claims of Gods beyond the mere deistic or "creator god" claims.

Yup. Because of that and some other reasons, one of which I also mentioned.

Thank you for the clarification.

I was talking about my belief in a god. Beliefs aren't knowledge, Sarkus. Believing is not the same thing as knowing. Believing doesn't require knowing.

Okay... but, again, you talked about removing the "idea" that god is necessary - which physics doesn't do - not the "belief" that god is necessary - which physics can only inform. You then talked about how it is okay to "not know", and here I am simply explaining that "not knowing" also doesn't remove the "idea" that god is necessary.
But, I get it: you didn't originally say what you meant, and you have since clarified. So, thank you.

If that's an option for you, you're very welcome to it.

It's not just an "option" for me, JamesR, but rather a logical possibility. For you as well. For everyone. Whether you wish to give it any significant consideration is up to you, but it is, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, an "option" for you as well. To deny it as an option is also to contradict what you have said previously: "What could rule out a supernatural creator? I can't think of anything."

 

[Sarkus]

Nobody has proved that god was ever necessary.

Of course not. Proof is a matter of mathematics and logic. The best they can do is not rule it out as a possibility.

I have, on numerous occasions. I have always found the answers to be unsatisfactory. I suppose you have, too.

Unsatisfactory in terms of moving me toward believing, yes, but not in terms of gaining an understanding and appreciation of their viewpoint. It has also helped me look at what some of them believe without needing to caricature it.

Okay. So, now that you've said it repeatedly a bunch of times, are you satisfied that you've adequately communicated your opinion to everybody who is reading this thread? Or do you want to repeat yourself again?

I'll repeat something as often as I feel it appropriate, in the places I feel it appropriate.

Yes. One of those.

Do you think misattributing a person's response to a completely different question (than the one it was actually a response to) to be honest?

You can take the boy out of Catholicism, but you can't take Catholicism out of the boy.

I'm sure there's a (poor taste) joke in there somewhere about Catholic priests... :/
Anyway, yes, yes you can definitely take the Catholicism out of the boy. It is far easier to do than removing the Christianity, and that is easier than removing the theism. But all are possible.

I'm a bit puzzled, though. If you realised that God was outside the scope of science, then one way you could have gone was to reason that science could never disprove the existence of the God. In that case, would it not be open to you to just keep on believing in the unfalsifiable God? In your circumstance, maintaining your god belief would be entirely compatible with accepting all of science, would it not?

It would, yes. Entirely compatible, and I am sure that many of my contemporaries at school "believed" on that very basis. I think my brother is among that category. But the way I'm wired, so to speak, I am very much a Doubting Thomas. I won't believe in the absence of something, but I also won't believe in the existence of it either, unless there is a psychological need, or another genuine physical rationale that I can accept. Yes, religions can do wonderful things through their charitable works, but that is not enough (for me) to believe. Yes, religion can help the individual by helping them in their times of emotional and psychological trouble. But other non-religious organisations can do that. And then there's the whole "if it works, great, but that doesn't mean the tenets are true, only that your belief in them helps you" idea.
So, sure, I could have, if I was wired that way (physically and/or psychologically). But I'm not.

Why did you let go of the god belief, then?

Ultimately because I didn't/don't need it. And I don't think it matters. And I'm lazy.

One argument that I think is a good one is this: if God is omniscient then God knows exactly what it would take to make me believe in him. And if he is also all-powerful (or just very powerful), then he could easily make whatever was necessary happen to cause me to become convinced about his existence. And yet, apparently, that God is content to let me go right on not believing.

If God gave you exactly what it would take for you to believe in Him then there would be no freewill about your belief. He wouldn't be testing you, challenging you, etc, which some see as helping grow one's character for the final judgement, and all that.
There is then the argument that God ultimately doesn't judge you on whether you believe in Him or not, but rather what you do with what He has given you. If you don't believe but are nonetheless a "good" person in His judgement then that is what He wanted for you.

Seems then, that if that God exists, he doesn't mind that I don't believe in him. In fact, it could be that it is part of his plan that I be a non-believer.

I couldn't say. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It might be comfortable to rationalise it away like that.
There's the question of whether a creator god is knowable or not. Then there is the question of the character of any such creator god, and whether that is knowable or not. William Lane Craig, in his expanded Kalam Cosmological Argument, for example, would try to argue that logic supports god being knowable (the KCA) and that his nature is ultimate goodness etc. One can then try to argue this and that about god's nature, and from that about whether our "belief" in His existence is something he would be judgemental of. But, meh, I'm of the "I don't know" camp.

So need to worry about Pascal's wager then, as far as I can tell.

PW always struck me as being reliant upon a certain understanding of God and the ultimate reward/heaven on offer etc. If you hold to those ideas then PW might be convincing (if one can choose to believe rather than just give lip-service - although the idea is that the wager is about applying oneself, from which true belief should then hopefully follow - a whole other can of worms), but absent those notions of heaven/reward etc, then the whole wager breaks down, does it not? Or at least becomes far more complicated.

I didn't say that rules out the possibility that god exists. Seems like you're not content to catch my current self out in an error. You also now want to try to catch my younger self out in an error, too. And if that means making up fantasies about what views I held in the past, you're willing to go there. You should think about stopping with that kind of bullshit. But, based on past performance, I don't expect you will.

You specifically said: "Well, it did for me, personally, by removing the idea that a god is necessary for the universe to exist.". Note the past tense "did", so this clearly was with reference to your younger self. It was always about your younger self in this regard. I'm just going by what you wrote, JamesR. Again, if you didn't mean what you wrote, sure, just clarify when the issue is first raise, and move on. If you did mean what you wrote with regard your younger self but have now adapted/developed that view, again, sure, whatever, happy to discuss. It's nothing personal. It's simply what you wrote. But stop having a go at me for simply addressing what you actually wrote. I repeat: it's not personal. Stop trying to make it so.

Well, that's a relief. A weight off my shoulders. For a minute there, I thought you were disapproving.

Not of that, no.