Shameless plug

[Sethomas]

I've recently added a writings section to my webpage, which now includes my rough outline of metaphysical consequence and my newly improved proof of god's existance. I need people to critique my stuff as much as possible, so please pick away at them. Since it uses frames, I can't link directly to it, so my webpage is this: http://home.uchicago.edu/~stp .

[Perndog]

Why does the force that transcends time and gives the universe a little nudge to get started have to be God? Why can't it be some other transcendent being, or more probably, an undetected kind of particle that whizzes around in multiple dimensions? The existence of such a particle is no less viable than the existence of God.

[CaptainBubba]

Essentially that proof consists of a question whose answer you assume to be understood.

For the Big Bang to take place, there must have been a force from beyond the universe that acted upon the point-particle universe in transcendence of the nature of time.

This merely establishes a question which must be answered, and though very inetersting, in no way suggests anything in particular regarding what actually acted upon the point-particle.

Unless your definition of god is very vague or general.

[Immortal Goat]

It is simply not possible to prove God's existence with science, as the two are basically opposite forces.

[kahljorn]

"Note: there may be several more non-extended dimensions of space according to some factions of physics, most namely String Theory"

AND NOSTRODAMUS :O:O I forget what it's called, Something something sun and earth.


Interesting stuff, even though I think differently than most of it. Kind of like what I'm doing with my page, but less confusing.

[Sethomas]

It is simply not possible to prove God's existence with science, as the two are basically opposite forces.

That's a pretty weak cop-out. Both theology and science are modes of thinking that rationalize some facet of existence. To say that they can't possibly coalesce is shere ignorance. If you can make a valid point against mine, feel free to state it. Don't just blindly object to the idea.

This merely establishes a question which must be answered, and though very inetersting, in no way suggests anything in particular regarding what actually acted upon the point-particle.

Unless your definition of god is very vague or general.

My point was that whatever responsible force acts above the rules of time and space. Finding the nature of god is an endeavor I will take up, but not here. As far as this discussion is concerned, my conclusion of god is indeed very general.

Why does the force that transcends time and gives the universe a little nudge to get started have to be God? Why can't it be some other transcendent being, or more probably, an undetected kind of particle that whizzes around in multiple dimensions?

Some other transcendent being? Like what, an angel? It really sounds like you're pulling shit out of your ass. A particle can't whiz around in multiple dimensions when all the dimensions are contracted down to the Planck length. It'd be more viable to suggest that there was a particle interaction in a parallel universe, but I already explained that the presence of quantum gravity would nullify any effects it could have.

[Immortal Goat]

Ok, Seth, I get it, you want a more intelligent response than what I said earlier. Ok, how does this sound?

Although one can believe in God and science at the same time, science cannot prove the existence of a God. In science, there are many unanswered questions that people explain by saying that "God must have started that ." or "It was God who made the first paramecium move", but the lack of explanation in no way proves God's existence, it only proves that there is a lot more for the human race to learn.

[Perndog]

I was pulling shit out of my ass. Because, from a scientific standpoint, that's the same thing theists are doing when they use this proof. You have the logical conclusion that something transcendent must have acted on the universe to get it started, but you don't include the obvious fact that it could just as easily be an arbitrary, unthinking physical force as an intelligent creator. You may have a very general definition of God, as far as your proof goes, but if you weren't thinking of a specific god, you wouldn't have bothered to try and prove his existence in the first place - I mean, you say yourself, you're trying to prove God's existence. Not "a god," but God with a capital G. And the fact remains that no matter how sound the proof may be, the only way to correlate it with a specific entity or force is with a leap of faith.

[Sethomas]

Another brief run-through of coeternalism is up. So BUMP.

[Immortal Goat]

Damn, I thought I recognized this thread. Just fuckin let sleeping dogs lie. God's existence van NOT be proven by any human means. For there to be proof, God would have to reveal itself to all of us in such a manner as to dispose of all doubt. You simply brought up the part that has scientists stumped and said "There it is! That is what God is! He must have done it, because scientists don't know what the fuck it is!" Well, guess what. People have been using God to explain things for all of recorded history, including rain. And we all know how rain is REALLY made, right?

[Helm]

For the Big Bang to take place, there must have been a force from beyond the universe that acted upon the point-particle universe in transcendence of the nature of time.

Cpt is right. You are making a demand, you're not proving anything. What should and must exist according to a mode of thinking does not nec. agree with what indeed comes to pass. The difference between demanding something to be so and actually proving it to be so should be obvious to you.

At a point in time (not not-yet-time as it may be) where time as you say is not yet an extended dimension our (generally applicable) concept of cause and effect (as expressed in this case in the sequence of god setting the universe in motion) does not apply to these special conditions since cause and effect is dependent on the presupposition of linear motion of time. The specific time sequence in which your god wills the universe in motion is thusly a logical irrelevancy when time is not yet a linear context.

So much for your proof of god's existence. Insert coin to continue.

[kahljorn]

I can prove God's "Existence", but only because I understand his true nature.

[Helm]

I'd tell you to humour me with your proof but somehow I'm pretty certain it will be a complete waste of my time. If you however strongly dissagree with my estimate then by all means, explain to me the true nature of god. Just no poems, please. No number or rolleyes emoticons can thorougly portray my disposition.

[kellychaos]

Ok, Seth, I get it, you want a more intelligent response than what I said earlier. Ok, how does this sound?

Although one can believe in God and science at the same time, science cannot prove the existence of a God. In science, there are many unanswered questions that people explain by saying that "God must have started that ." or "It was God who made the first paramecium move", but the lack of explanation in no way proves God's existence, it only proves that there is a lot more for the human race to learn.

When exactly did the split take place anyway? By this, I mean the two opposing theories, the metaphysical/theological and the scientific. It's odd that once upon a time theology had the authority, then science gained the authority, and now it seems that science has once again returned to the metaphysical now that a wall, so to speak, has been met. Can they be merely two ways to explain something that our language doesn't have words for or that is not encompassed in the range of our given senses. Even science, with it's electron microscopes, ect is working way beyond the scope of our normal senses and we've learned to trust THAT technology on faith even though the general masses can't see, or in come cases, interpret that data. What's the difference in putting that same faith in religion?

[Immortal Goat]

I do believe in a god, don't get me wrong. I just do not believe that it's existence can be proven using scientific methods. As you said, Kelly, some things are just beyond human comprehension.

Kahl, you do not understand god's true nature. No-one does. And no-one ever will.

[kellychaos]

Our own existence, or even that of things around us, can't be proven totally through science. Do you ever find it odd that this scientific wall in reference to quantum physics is just about at the same point as the wall in reference to neuroscience/microbiology? In other words, we're having the same difficulty in extroverted discovery as we are in introverted discovery. I find it an interesting dichotomy of our will of discovery. Will the two meet? Will one explain the other ... or IS it the other?

[Sethomas]

Just fuckin let sleeping dogs lie.

Wake up hypocrite, I didn't bring up this thread for my god proof but rather for the MC articles I added. Try to keep up.

For there to be proof, God would have to reveal itself to all of us in such a manner as to dispose of all doubt.

That's "proof" by your own convoluted definition. Why would any god "dispose of all doubt"? Wouldn't that take away the fun of it?

You simply brought up the part that has scientists stumped

No, it's the point at which science no longer has anything to say. There is no scientific mystery about what happened before the big bang: nothing happened because there was no time. That was my original point entirely.

What should and must exist according to a mode of thinking does not nec. agree with what indeed comes to pass.

You still fail to demonstrate an alternative mode of thinking that adequately puts the issue to rest.

The specific time sequence in which your god wills the universe in motion is thusly a logical irrelevancy when time is not yet a linear context.

I never said he did it in a linear manner of cause and effect, that was your own assumption. I actually believe something quite different, which was vaguely described in the other two articles I have online. I'm currently working on a longer piece to that end, but I doubt you'd have the patience to read it.

So much for your proof of god's existence. Insert coin to continue.

OMG, I was OWNED by your concise rebuttal! :rolleyes

[Immortal Goat]

You still fail to see the point, Seth. It isn't that scientists have NOTHING to say, it's that they have nothing to say RIGHT NOW. They have yet to figure out what caused all of that stuff to happen, and you are saying that it was God. God may have caused it to happen, but just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean that it was God.

And also, about taking away the "fun of it", wouldn't trying to find definitive proof yourself take away everyone else's fun, anyway?

[Zhukov]

Haha. I don't think Big Bang theorists will ever think up something. Maybe Dark Matter can help?

[Sethomas]

You still fail to see the point, Seth. It isn't that scientists have NOTHING to say, it's that they have nothing to say RIGHT NOW. They have yet to figure out what caused all of that stuff to happen, and you are saying that it was God. God may have caused it to happen, but just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean that it was God.

Do try to keep up with the conversation. To say that something happened before time began is a simple logical inconsistency. That was my point. Advanced knowledge can't change that.

[Immortal Goat]

Time doesn't truly exist, it is a human invention. Dinosaurs did not know anything about time, nor did the cave men. Existence has always been around, whether it be in thi galaxy or not. This galaxy is relatively new compared to others. Do they have the same "god" you speak of, or were they all accidents and our galaxy is the only one that has "god"?

[Sethomas]

Bullshit. If time were a human abstraction, you'd have to throw out Special and General Relativity as well as quantum mechanics.

[Rez]

IT'S FUNNY WHEN GOD MAKES A CHURCH FULL OF OLD LADIES CRUMBLE AND FALL APART ISN'T IT?!

HEATHEN!

[FS]

You don't need to be conscious of time to experience it, and dinosaurs of course experienced time. When one thing happens and then another thing happens, an animal realizes they did not happen at the same time nor does he mix up the order of events.

Besides, it's the tree falling in the woods. Regardless of presence, it causes vibrations in the air that qualify as sound whether or not there's an ear around to catch it.

Still, much as I lack knowledge about the specifics of Big Bang theory, I disagree that the existence of God can be proven scientifically. For one thing, theory is theory - it's not proven fact that is claimed to rule out everything else possible. For another, as the human mind can't truly understand infinity, I don't believe we're equipped to speculate on what could and would happen in the absence of time and space. Lastly, and probably most importantly, the failure to answer a question does not prove the answer must be God. To an objective and logical mind, the answer is as much God as it is aliens, nothing and magic.

[CaptainBubba]

So what is your definition of god, Seth? Don't you need one before you can prove it's existence?

[Helm]

Wouldn't that take away the fun of it?

Moron.

I never said he did it in a linear manner of cause and effect, that was your own assumption. I actually believe something quite different, which was vaguely described in the other two articles I have online. I'm currently working on a longer piece to that end, but I doubt you'd have the patience to read it.

In other words, you mean to say that you're a biased and pretentious dork with no actual solid concept on what you're discussing, right? That's what I got from this amazing reply of yours. "Look forward to my next article which you will not be able to read". Right. :rolleyes

If you say god did not set the universe in motion in a specific point in time, then you're logically saying that god did not set the universe in motion. How this is beyond you I fail to understand.

So come on then, answer nothing and be sarcastic again. God knows that's something we never see around here.

OMG, I was OWNED by your concise rebuttal! :rolleyes

Hahaha

[Perndog]

It's Satan's turn to speak now.

GOD IS A FAIRY TALE. THE END. YOU HAVE WASTED YOUR 70 YEARS PRAYING AND SEARCHING FOR MEANING IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES. I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY. YOU CAN ALL GO HOME NOW. GOODNIGHT. THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

[FS]

shyeah. I think Satan's the LAST person who should be denying the existence of God.

[Perndog]

Wrong Satan, FS. ;)

[kahljorn]

Do you ever summon demons or cast spells or do ritual things, perndog?

Serious.

[Perndog]

I live in a small apartment with a roommate at a Christian college, so no. For one, I have no space for rituals, for two, my roommate is around to often for me to want to get into that sort of thing (privacy is kind of important), three, I can't afford props (in Satanism, it's all about psychodrama, like fancy roleplaying, so props and often costumes are important), and four, I don't want everyone to hear me and start telling stories about how I was chanting and yelling demonic names and weird languages.

When I live by myself or in a house with a room to myself, then yes. No summoning demons, though, they don't exist either. (I don't think...)

[Zhukov]

What DO you do?

[Perndog]

Wouldn't YOU like to know? http://www.personalsatan.com/lttd/images/graemlins/devil.gif

[kahljorn]

What about going out to an open field in the middle of nowhere? I'd come with you.

[Sethomas]

Sethomas wrote:
Wouldn't that take away the fun of it?


Moron.

Is that really all you have to say? Assuming you really did have a point, are you saying that if there were a god, he would want his existence to be an undisputed fact? Giving him sentience, I don't think he'd want that at all. <obligatory>dumbass.</obligatory>

In other words, you mean to say that you're a biased and pretentious dork with no actual solid concept on what you're discussing, right?

How the fuck does the term "dork" have any weight on an internet message board, exactly? We're both fish in the same goddamn school. I'm not biased in having a concept of an existing god any more than you're biased for being antitheist. Unless you greeks somehow have a transcending omniscience of the ethereal, you're just a very black pot calling the other kitchenwares names.

"Look forward to my next article which you will not be able to read". Right.

I never said you were incapable, you ever-presumptuous twat. The article to which I was refering is not nearly close to completion and currently is at over 4,500 words. Then I'm probably going to rewrite the whole thing in a deist perspective. Still interested?

If you say god did not set the universe in motion in a specific point in time, then you're logically saying that god did not set the universe in motion. How this is beyond you I fail to understand.

I'm surprised at your apparent ignorance of Thomist metaphysics. God is an eternal being. Time does not exist in eternity. Creation did not take place in time, as Creation was the inception of time itself. This is not stuff that I'm making up, such an idea has been around since Boethius.

You are right in thinking that it's akward to conceive of action in the absence of time, and this is the subject I'm dealing with now in my writings on coeternalism.

[Perndog]

Boethius also said it was common and vulgar to be a performer of music later than childhood, and that the only worthy course of musical study as an adult was criticism. Tell me and all of the world's orchestras he wasn't full of bullshit. And if he was (on this point if not many others), then nothing precludes any of his contemporaries from being as equally full of shit. Oh, and he also thought the world was flat, and everyone agreed with him. Go figure.

In short: appeals to authority, ESPECIALLY when debating physics and metaphysics, are VERY WEAK arguments bordering on LOGICAL FALLACIES.

Just thought you'd like to know where you're not quite covering your bases, you are one of those logical types...

[CaptainBubba]

I believe you have to answer my question to have a viable thesis Seth. Do you not have to define something before you set out to specifically prove that thing?

If you were merely conducting science and discovering what is responsible for the Big Bang and not how god was responsible for it that would be understandable. However you insist on saying that your thesis is proving "god's" existence. I could just as easily say it proves "a baked potatoe's" existence with what you've provided so far regarding the actual definition of god.

edit: A baked potatoe in the sense that this baked potatoe is "special". Obviously unlike any baked potatoe we are accustomed to. At first i thought that went without saying, but I realize it doesn't and makes me sound stupid. :/

[Helm]

Is that really all you have to say? Assuming you really did have a point, are you saying that if there were a god, he would want his existence to be an undisputed fact? Giving him sentience, I don't think he'd want that at all. <obligatory>dumbass.</obligatory>

You think what would god think and why would god think thusly. You are in a position to do so, why? *groan*

Moron.

How the fuck does the term "dork" have any weight on an internet message board, exactly? We're both fish in the same goddamn school. I'm not biased in having a concept of an existing god any more than you're biased for being antitheist. Unless you greeks somehow have a transcending omniscience of the ethereal, you're just a very black pot calling the other kitchenwares names.

No you see not believing in something until a clear succint believable attempt towards proving it has been made is not a bias; it's common sense. To call me a biased 'antitheist' (hahahahahahah) is to call a man that doesn't believe in the existance of quadridimensional space clowns biased. The burden of proof is on you theists. And you ARE biased, because apparently you've sat down and said "A god MUST exist! Now, let's try to prove it!" and as the aristotle which you've understood since you were eight would have told you, that's a flawed foundation in a epistemoligical attempt. Dork.

I never said you were incapable, you ever-presumptuous twat. The article to which I was refering is not nearly close to completion and currently is at over 4,500 words. Then I'm probably going to rewrite the whole thing in a deist perspective. Still interested?

Seeing how your far-less wordy replies in this thread are fairing, I indeed think I'll pass.


I'm surprised at your apparent ignorance of Thomist metaphysics.

Switch ignorance with lack of respect towards and don't be so suprised. If THAT'S where you're coming from, I don't think we have much more to discuss.

God is an eternal being. Time does not exist in eternity.

Wee! There we go with ultimate terms! Omnipotence! Omniescence! Did you know that every such ultimate term contributes towards a logical fallacy? Remember the old sophist argument of the rock that god can't lift? I find it very amusing that you're using final axiomatic terms AND claim to do thusly in an epistemoligic context while keeping a straight face.

But to go with what you're saying if you're willing to accept that there's such a thing as eternity, then the universe could just as well be eternal. Your naive demand of a god is superfluous. And biased. And very funny for a man with such a high IQ.


You are right in thinking that it's *sniff* akward to conceive of action in the absence of time, and this *sob* is the subject I'm dealing with now *whipe* in my writings on *sniff* coeternalism.

There, there.

[Perndog]

If an antitheist firmly denies the existence of a god or gods, he shares the burden of proof. I don't know if you're in this category, Helm. But if you are, please show me every corner of the universe where a god could possibly be and then I will be satisfied.

[kahljorn]

a baked potatoe is God, duh!

So is my shoe.

You guys limit "God's power" more than any atheist does.

[Perndog]

That's because the people who invented God have the sole right to describe him in detail. ;)

[Helm]

My position is that an all-powerful, omnipresent eternal god cannot logically exist (the law of exclusion of the middle for example voids the possibility of allpowerfulness, as demostrated by the 'rock that cannot lift' sophism). Final terms create logical fallacy that has to be taken into account.

I do not deny the possibility of higher intelligence or beings that could be substantially stronger than us, but I deny myself the baseness to attribute divine nature to any such. I am an agnostic, meaning that I do not know either how the universe became, or if it was by someone's (divine or otherwise) design. I look to science to provide clues to the origin of the world, and philosophers to present theories as to the design behind it. I am critical of both and I have no agenda other than the persual of truth. But I do oppose those that have the audacity to claim their 'god' is logically the one true god because simply the concept of (at least the judeochristian god, but any allpowerful, eternal god applies) god topples over under logical inspection. I think of faith, as Achimp put it once, as intellectual bankruptcy, but I see it as anyone's right to have their personal faith, even as misguided I might find it. But to have someone claim that by logic his god is the true right one, that's just shoving it right down my throat and I don't like it.

If Sethomas said something in the lines of "God exists 'cause I feel him deep inside when I am at prayer" eventhough there's a rebuttal to that too, I'd hardly consider it worth the effort to challenge his faith. But to claim in a pseudo-epistemological manner that god exists, just is too objective a claim not to challenge. Because if it was the former scenario, it might as well be true for him, but not to anybody else that presumably doesn't feel said god in prayer. But in the latter scenario, if it's true for him, it's true for everybody (that stands by reason) and that just begs for further scrutiny.

[Sethomas]

You think what would god think and why would god think thusly. You are in a position to do so, why? *groan*

Being a pretentious dork is a suitable position to do so, n'est-ce pas? If you'd like to actually contradict such a point, be my guest.

No you see not believing in something until a clear succint believable attempt towards proving it has been made is not a bias; it's common sense.

"clear," "succint," and "believable" are all highly subjective terms and so do not rightly belong in a claim to common sense unless they are given a standard of comparison.

And you ARE biased, because apparently you've sat down and said "A god MUST exist! Now, let's try to prove it!" and as the aristotle which you've understood since you were eight would have told you, that's a flawed foundation in a epistemoligical attempt.

I've witnessed god at work several times in my life, and so I made an effort to rationalize his existence to myself. How is that any different than Newton witnessing rainbows and consequentially striving to explain the defraction of light?

But to go with what you're saying if you're willing to accept that there's such a thing as eternity, then the universe could just as well be eternal.

Bullshit, since time does not pass in eternity.

Your naive demand of a god is superfluous.

Only in that I only believe in a god for personal reasons. Playing with Occham's razor, I should be dead too many times over for my life to really make sense. I don't have to prove God's existence to myself. I won't define what god actually is because I have never claimed to actually know that. He seems to have a design, which would imply a will and thus sentience, but I'm not altogether committed to that idea.

Perndog, so what if Boethius didn't like music. Where do you get that he thought the world was flat? He and his contemporaries speculated on the existence of antipodals, which requires a round planet. More importantly, so the fuck what? He was a philosopher, not a cartographer.

[Perndog]

Boethius did like music, he was the foremost authority on it in his time. And as the foremost authority, he said that a person of any class should only criticize and analyze music and never perform it because that was for the common folk. This is a ridiculous point of philosophy, and thus any other philosophy from him or his contemporaries may be sound but has the chance at being equally ridiculous, therefore you can't appeal to them as authorities.

[Helm]

Being a pretentious dork is a suitable position to do so, n'est-ce pas? If you'd like to actually contradict such a point, be my guest.


No I don't want to contradict that point. I will laugh at you again though.

"clear," "succint," and "believable" are all highly subjective terms and so do not rightly belong in a claim to common sense unless they are given a standard of comparison.


Those terms are not subjective in science. If you believe so, you know even less that I thought you did, and clearly quite more than you ever suspected.

Clear in that which is attempted, clear in the methods employed, and clear in the presentation of axioms and arguments. Succint as in not 4.500 words (many a time a weak argument has been shielded in sheer amount of academia and by deliberate bureocratic obscurity) and believable as in logical and if possible, verifiable by experimentation as well as fact. Your 'proof' of god's existence was not clear in what was attempted, since what you're trying to prove existent was not clearly defined. Your methods were, while possibly clear under question (where you base your assumptions on, mainly) but hey, at least the presentation was clear and to-the-point. Like paint-by-numbers books. Cudos on that. As for it being believable, seeing the lack of foundation, the questionable method and apparent bias, I think I would be wary of you and your explanation even if I was a theist.

How is that any different than Newton witnessing rainbows and consequentially striving to explain the defraction of light?


Third person perception. I've yet to meet two theists that agree on the the whole of their beliefs. Also, when Newton witnessed gravity, he did not say "ah! let's call this gravity (with everything that clings to to such a definition) Now let's prove it being so!" what he did was to work from the ground up with no assumptions, and by logic and experimentation arrived at a definable effect, which interfaced with it's physical context. Can you say you're doing the same? Haven't you already fleshed out your god well beyond wishful moderation or provable fact? I think so.

Bullshit, since time does not pass in eternity.


Wouldn't eternity classify as 'the whole of time?' Ah! Welcome to the zany land of logical fallacy! Stay a while. Stay forever...



If anything, I hope this delightful discussion we're having at least hints on the fact that you're well underequipped to prove the existence of the divine via scientific means. But don't feel bad about it. If you weren't, you'd be certifiably insane.

[CaptainBubba]

I won't define what god actually is because I have never claimed to actually know that.

Then what the fuck are you trying to prove? :lol

[kellychaos]

"Welcome aboard, Mr Pilgrim," said the loudspeaker. "Any questions?"

Billy licked his lips, thought a while, inquired at last: "Why me?"

"That is a very Earthling question to ask, Mr Pilgrim. Why you? Why us for that matter? Why anything? Because this moment simply is. Have you ever seen bugs trapped in amber?"

"Yes." Billy, in fact, had a paperweight in his office which was a blob of polished amber with three ladybugs embedded in it.

"Well, here we are, Mr Pilgrim, trapped in the amber of this moment. There is no why."

[KellyGayos]

no

[Immortal Goat]

I've witnessed god at work several times in my life, and so I made an effort to rationalize his existence to myself.

Just one question. Why do you HAVE to rationalize it? I mean, faith SHOULD be enough, right? Why try to prove it for everyone else. You believe, that is enough.

[Perndog]

"Welcome aboard, Mr Pilgrim," said the loudspeaker. "Any questions?"

Billy licked his lips, thought a while, inquired at last: "Why me?"

"That is a very Earthling question to ask, Mr Pilgrim. Why you? Why us for that matter? Why anything? Because this moment simply is. Have you ever seen bugs trapped in amber?"

"Yes." Billy, in fact, had a paperweight in his office which was a blob of polished amber with three ladybugs embedded in it.

"Well, here we are, Mr Pilgrim, trapped in the amber of this moment. There is no why."

So it goes.