A case for religion, and against AA.

[PhatoseAlpha]

PA's down to "God can't contradict himself, and thus isn't God". But if God could contradict himself he would also not be God right? This "Tails I win, Heads you lose" mentality is great as a basis of faith, but not so great as the basis of a thoughtful discussion.

I beg to differ. It's a basic proof by contradiction. That's a feature of logic itself, and Hardly equivalent to faith. If god's omnipotence would lead to a contradiction, then it follows god is not omnipotent.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

One can logically derive a contradiction from a definition of omnipotence that includes "able to perform all logically consistent actions."

The gist is that the idea of "able to perform all logically consistent actions" is not really coherent, because by Cantor's Powerset theorem we can always construct a set with a greater cardinality than the set of "all logically consistent actions."

 

[JEDIYoda]

I cant believe this thread is still going and people reply to Jediyoda lol. He is beyond a lost cause.

Lost cause as in will never be an Atheist -- sho nuff!!

 

[lotus503]

I do think everyone on both sides of the discussion can appreciate the common denominator which is that at the core of the discussion we have “Belief”

Theist would argue that to not believe in God (Atheism) would require the same level of belief as believing in God. That somehow if I do not know the answer to a question (How the universe was created) I need to account for all possibilities and to not account for them or to dismiss one outright requires belief.

For some Atheists that may be the case, however for others the need to draw a conclusion absent the required data just isn’t there. As I have stated previously I am perfectly fine with not knowing, maybe never knowing how the universe really began. The fact that I reject the idea of Gods existence based on the principal there is no real evidence outside of one’s own belief, does not require belief at all.


Its simple, Mankind generally likes to have answers to stuff, they are perfectly fine with the answers being wrong as long as they have less uncertainty.

The best argument I have heard for Gods existence BTW is that Humans are hardwired to believe in deities and that that very wiring is evidence of Gods existence.

A belief is nothing more than a drawn conclusion based on a set of experiences and I would argue if you consider every belief you have over the span of your life, most of them are incorrect when compared to the data or at the very least one would have to consider multiple belief outcomes on a set of experiences, that’s why things are so subjective.

I believe I am a good person based on a set of factors, Others may think I am a bad person based on a set of factors it all comes down to experiences and the perspective we gain from them.

 

[witeken]

That's fine Witeken, and I appreciate the conversation. I consider your existence the highest good; in fact I consider the good you do the whole purpose of reality. If you prefer not to think of things that way then you're right in dismissing my counter point. Just as long as we recognize that we've now turned the 'logical disproof' into a subjective choice about what 'benevolent' is in the first place.

I'll have to correct myself. I do not consider myself "the highest good". I'm not the highest good (of the universe), nor "the whole purpose of reality". Take a look at this awe-inspiring image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field:

Every dot you see is a galaxy. Every one of those galaxies contains hundreds of billions of stars, potentially with thousands or millions of civilizations (which are gone because the light traveled multiple billions of years to reach earth).

All those things don't exist because humans are the highest good or the whole purpose of reality. Humans simply exist for the same reasons those galaxies, planets and civilizations exist. No god, benevolence or omnipotence involved.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I beg to differ. It's a basic proof by contradiction. That's a feature of logic itself, and Hardly equivalent to faith. If god's omnipotence would lead to a contradiction, then it follows god is not omnipotent.

God is Truth. If God is real then Truth exists, If there is no God then there is no Truth. If you can logically disprove God then you've also logically disproved Truth; thus for any argument to be True it can't disprove God.

This is precisely the form of argumentation. It's piss-poor logic because it starts with an internally inconsistent statement taken as an axiom an then shows how internally inconsistent the axiom is. Same thing with the "God is Omnipotently, but God can't ALSO be NOT Omnipotent thus making God not NOT Omnipotent".

Cantor's Powerset theorem we can always construct a set with a greater cardinality than the set of "all logically consistent actions."

Could you please describe what you are speaking of, i'm unfamiliar with the argument. But Godel's incompleteness theorem seems to imply that all complex systems cannot demonstrate their own consistency. So If you're simply saying that God doesn't prove the cogency of God (as opposed to it dis-proving the cogency of God) then that's fine; but it's a limitation of all human axiomatic endeavors.

All those things don't exist because humans are the highest good or the whole purpose of reality. Humans simply exist for the same reasons those galaxies, planets and civilizations exist.

I agree

No god, benevolence or omnipotence involved

I disagree. All those folks in the deep-space, living out their deep-space lives, they too are the purpose of creation. I was just bracketing out our time on earth because it's what's relevant to us.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'll have to correct myself. I do not consider myself "the highest good". I'm not the highest good (of the universe), nor "the whole purpose of reality". Take a look at this awe-inspiring image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field:

Every dot you see is a galaxy. Every one of those galaxies contains hundreds of billions of stars, potentially with thousands or millions of civilizations (which are gone because the light traveled multiple billions of years to reach earth).

God's power on display.

Thanks for the pic.

And, how can you know that those "potentially...thousands or millions of civilizations are gone", if we have no evidence of them ever existing?

Are you making stuff up?

And if the Universe is teeming with "thousands of millions of civilizations", why haven't we been contacted yet? There is the same amount of evidence for aliens as there is for Zeus...which is pretty much zero.

 

[witeken]

God is Truth. If God is real then Truth exists, If there is no God then there is no Truth. If you can logically disprove God then you've also logically disproved Truth; thus for any argument to be True it can't disprove God.

One of your failed premises is that god is the only truth. The fact that a planet moves according to the laws of Newton doesn't mean god exists, unless you mean with god "laws of nature / Universe". Replace God with Universe, and your argument makes a bit more sense.

I agree

What? That contradicts what you said earlier.

I disagree. All those folks in the deep-space, living out their deep-space lives, they too are the purpose of creation. I was just bracketing out our time on earth because it's what's relevant to us.

Why is life the purpose of creation?

 

[dphantom]

God's power on display.

yes, indeed.

 

[alzan]

God's power on display.

Thanks for the pic.

And, how can you know that those "potentially...thousands or millions of civilizations are gone", if we have no evidence of them ever existing?

Are you making stuff up?

And if the Universe is teeming with "thousands of millions of civilizations", why haven't we been contacted yet? There is the same amount of evidence for aliens as there is for Zeus...which is pretty much zero.

We haven't been contacted because they eavesdropped AT forums via radio waves and decided, "Meh, not worth it."

 

[JD50]

God's power on display.

Thanks for the pic.

And, how can you know that those "potentially...thousands or millions of civilizations are gone", if we have no evidence of them ever existing?

Are you making stuff up?

And if the Universe is teeming with "thousands of millions of civilizations", why haven't we been contacted yet? There is the same amount of evidence for aliens as there is for Zeus...which is pretty much zero.

Every one of those galaxies contains hundreds of billions of stars, potentially with thousands or millions of civilizations

potentially with thousands or millions of civilizations

potentially

 

[witeken]

God's power on display.

Thanks for the pic.

I knew you were going to say that. It doesn't show anything about god. You could interpret it in any way you like with that logic.

But it doesn't put god's power on display because those stars formed because of the laws of nature. They had to.

And, how can you know that those "potentially...thousands or millions of civilizations are gone", if we have no evidence of them ever existing?

Are you making stuff up?

Educated guess. What would be the probability of life forming on planets? One in a million? That's already quite a low chance... Let's take 1 in 10 billion, comparable to about 1 person on earth. Let's take for that person also a chance of 1 in 10 billion. The number of stars (which is about comparable to the amount of planets) = 10^24.

10^24 / 10^(10+10) = 10^(24-20) = 10^4.

Even in this absolute worst-case scenario, there are 10.000 planets with life in the observable universe. But since we toke an incredibly low estimate, I think it must much larger. I don't know for sure, though.

And if the Universe is teeming with "thousands of millions of civilizations", why haven't we been contacted yet? There is the same amount of evidence for aliens as there is for Zeus...which is pretty much zero.

I don't know. The universe if very big. We don't even know if it's technically feasible to travel to other starts (at the speed of light, it takes a few years to travel to the nearest star).

 

[Retro Rob]

Every one of those galaxies contains hundreds of billions of stars, potentially with thousands or millions of civilizations

potentially with thousands or millions of civilizations

potentially

Of course, but there is no doubt he truly believes that there are/were thousands or millions of civilizations...not because we've found evidence, but because there are an innumerable amount of stars, so by sheer chance and number, there are planets that are inhabited by intelligent life. Clearly, this is belief without evidence.

This is like saying that if I blow a paint shop up countless billions of times, I would get a Mona Lisa "thousands or millions" of times. It's highly improbable that you would get just one.

It takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in God.

 

[Retro Rob]

don't know. The universe if very big. We don't even know if it's technically feasible to travel to other starts (at the speed of light, it takes a few years to travel to the nearest star).

..but the Universe is almost 14 Billion years old. You mean to tell me that if there were "thousands or millions" of civilizations out there -- potentially -- that none of them had the technological knowhow to find or contact Earth?

If they came and went as you hypothesize, perhaps even millions or billions of years ago, they had plenty of time to be much, MUCH more advanced than us.

This is the kind of paradox you will always run into even if you hypothesize that there are/were "millions" of dead civilizations that obviously didn't find us first. Saying that they're dead even makes your argument more faith-based because it cannot be falsified.

 

[sandorski]

..but the Universe is almost 14 Billion years old. You mean to tell me that if there were "thousands or millions" of civilizations out there -- potentially -- that none of them had the technological knowhow to find or contact Earth?

If they came and went as you hypothesize, perhaps even millions or billions of years ago, they had plenty of time to be much, MUCH more advanced than us.

This is the kind of paradox you will always run into even if you hypothesize that there are/were "millions" of dead civilizations that obviously didn't find us first. Saying that they're dead even makes your argument more faith-based because it cannot be falsified.

His argument is based on Probability, not Faith. Granted we don't currently know how common Life is or can be, but given enough time we will have a better grasp on determining what the Probability is. That said, we have Evidence of Life, we still have no Evidence of a god.

 

[alzan]

Of course, but there is no doubt he truly believes that there are/were thousands or millions of civilizations...not because we've found evidence, but because there are an innumerable amount of stars, so by sheer chance and number, there are planets that are inhabited by intelligent life. Clearly, this is belief without evidence.

This is like saying that if I blow a paint shop up countless billions of times, I would get a Mona Lisa "thousands or millions" of times. It's highly improbable that you would get just one.

It takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in God.

His statement is a reasonable deduction though; you have chosen to call it belief/faith because of your own need to view atheists/agnostics as having a belief system so as to somehow "win" the discussion, at least in your own mind.

Saying that there is a potential of life on other planets is not the same as someone saying they believe/have faith that there's life on other planets or saying that there is life on other planets.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

God is Truth. If God is real then Truth exists, If there is no God then there is no Truth. If you can logically disprove God then you've also logically disproved Truth; thus for any argument to be True it can't disprove God.

This is precisely the form of argumentation. It's piss-poor logic because it starts with an internally inconsistent statement taken as an axiom an then shows how internally inconsistent the axiom is. Same thing with the "God is Omnipotently, but God can't ALSO be NOT Omnipotent thus making God not NOT Omnipotent".

I think you're misunderstanding my intentions. Proving god cannot be omnipotent does not rule out a non-omnipotent god, provided we're willing to drop omnipotence from our definition.

However, I think you'll find a fair number of the properties often applied to god are based on that very shaky omnipotence. Lacking that special classification, his morality is no longer absolute, but simply the decree of a powerful being. His alleged omnipotence is what separates him from being a simple cosmic despot. Abandon it, and a lot of his specialness collapses.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retro Rob
God's power on display.

yes, indeed.

 

[lotus503]

Of course, but there is no doubt he truly believes that there are/were thousands or millions of civilizations...not because we've found evidence, but because there are an innumerable amount of stars, so by sheer chance and number, there are planets that are inhabited by intelligent life. Clearly, this is belief without evidence.

This is like saying that if I blow a paint shop up countless billions of times, I would get a Mona Lisa "thousands or millions" of times. It's highly improbable that you would get just one.

It takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in God.

Well first to think that the probability of intelligent life elsewhere is high, is much different than believing it exists without evidence it exists.

I think odds of it existing are high, but I cant say it exists because just like God I have seen no evidence of it.

There is the distinction you are missing here, considering probability does not equal belief.

 

[Retro Rob]

His argument is based on Probability, not Faith. Granted we don't currently know how common Life is or can be, but given enough time we will have a better grasp on determining what the Probability is. That said, we have Evidence of Life, we still have no Evidence of a god.

The probability, IMO, is very low. I say that because the more we learn about the conditions for life as we know it, the more exoplanets we have to rule out.

Really, we're hoping we find earth-like conditions elsewhere. There is more to this than just finding life for the sake of science, in my opinion.

I bet that as soon as we find intelligent life (if it exists), the world's religions would be directly confronted with the findings, and made to account for their beliefs that God created only the Earth to be inhabited.

I have no doubt about that.

 

[lotus503]

The probability, IMO, is very low. I say that because the more we learn about the conditions for life as we know it, the more exoplanets we have to rule out.

Really, we're hoping we find earth-like conditions elsewhere. There is more to this than just finding life for the sake of science, in my opinion.

I bet that as soon as we find intelligent life (if it exists), the world's religions would be directly confronted with the findings, and made to account for their beliefs that God created only the Earth to be inhabited.

I have no doubt about that.

If you take a look at the Catholic religion for example they are already positioning for such findings. I don't think findings will have much impact on religion though, unless of course that intelligent life communicates unknown details of mans existence.

I have this position because I think Man will always use beliefs to fill in the gaps of unknowns, religion being no different, finding intelligent life doesn't mean all questions get answered, therefore beliefs will not be replaced.

 

[Retro Rob]

His statement is a reasonable deduction though; you have chosen to call it belief/faith because of your own need to view atheists/agnostics as having a belief system so as to somehow "win" the discussion, at least in your own mind.

I'm calling scientists who hold that view as having faith. That includes both theists and atheists persons.

 

[sandorski]

The probability, IMO, is very low. I say that because the more we learn about the conditions for life as we know it, the more exoplanets we have to rule out.

Really, we're hoping we find earth-like conditions elsewhere. There is more to this than just finding life for the sake of science, in my opinion.

I bet that as soon as we find intelligent life (if it exists), the world's religions would be directly confronted with the findings, and made to account for their beliefs that God created only the Earth to be inhabited.

I have no doubt about that.

We find Proteins in Meteorites. As a precursor to Life as we know it, it suggests that Life could be quite common. Our data set is too small to draw too many conclusions yet. There is the possibility of Life existing elsewhere in our Solar System, but it will take us some time and money to investigate that.

 

[witeken]

Of course, but there is no doubt he truly believes that there are/were thousands or millions of civilizations...not because we've found evidence, but because there are an innumerable amount of stars, so by sheer chance and number, there are planets that are inhabited by intelligent life. Clearly, this is belief without evidence.

I didn't know the answer, years ago. But then I recalled that there are billions of planets in this galaxy alone, and billions of galaxies. The scale of universe makes it reasonably possible for life to exist, even thousands or millions of planets with life.

I think the word "civilization" that I used is wrong. It might very well be, but then I assume a specific kind of animal, instead of just life. I'm sure if I want to make similar guesses about that, but I think there might be a few in that HUDF picture, and quite certainly in the whole universe.

This is like saying that if I blow a paint shop up countless billions of times, I would get a Mona Lisa "thousands or millions" of times. It's highly improbable that you would get just one.

Nope, the analogy is more like blowing up a paint shop 10^24 times and you know that there is at least 1 Mona Lisa. Would you bet there are more than just that one (don't confuse the probability of the paint shop with the universe)?

It takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in God.

Nope, because life has formed at least 1 time in the universe, but there are still 0 gods that we know of that exist in real life.

..but the Universe is almost 14 Billion years old. You mean to tell me that if there were "thousands or millions" of civilizations out there -- potentially -- that none of them had the technological knowhow to find or contact Earth?

I can impossibly comment on that, because you can't tackle this problem with probabilities or so, you have to have experience with aliens to know this, and we don't.

But maybe they might have the technology. But even if there are millions of those searching for other life, the universe is still too big to guarantee they must have visited us. We might be the only intelligent life in the galaxy, or maybe there are another few ones, but they have to search billions of planets.

Image if we had the technology. Would the government allow to randomly waste money on finding maybe 1 civilization by searching in billions of solar systems?

If they came and went as you hypothesize, perhaps even millions or billions of years ago, they had plenty of time to be much, MUCH more advanced than us.

This is the kind of paradox you will always run into even if you hypothesize that there are/were "millions" of dead civilizations that obviously didn't find us first. Saying that they're dead even makes your argument more faith-based because it cannot be falsified.

It's an interesting paradox indeed, but it cannot be solved without experience.

They're dead because that's sort of what happens after about 10 billion years. But if there are indeed civilizations today, we could extrapolate back in time, because I don't know why they couldn't live billions of years ago. Not faith-based.

 

[Retro Rob]

If you take a look at the Catholic religion for example they are already positioning for such findings. I don't think findings will have much impact on religion though, unless of course that intelligent life communicates unknown details of mans existence.

Sure, but my point is that it will weaken the very foundation of, at least, the religions based on the Bible. The Bible clearly indicates that life only exists on Earth.

If life exists elsewhere (and I mean intelligent life), then the Bible has serious problems to account for on that topic. Of course, many will "reinterpret" it as saying that since it never mentioned life outside our planet, it's part of God's "plan", or some garbage like that.[/quote]