From Nothing to Nothing

a reply to: chr0naut

Having no evidence of purple bannanas does not mean that purple bannanas do not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of Ice-9 does not mean that Ice-9 does not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of the Higgs Boson does not mean that the Higgs Boson does not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of God does not mean that God does not, or cannot, exist.

But it does preclude purple bananas, ice-9, and the higgs boson (which really doesn't apply here as there is measurable data indicating its existence) from being pertinent in a productive discussion, particularly if its a definitive conclusion you are after.

That atheism requires no objective evidence of the existence of a god (an absolute lack of evidence) is correct.

But are you absolutely sure that there are no evidences that are objective and may possibly point to the existence of God (because that'd break atheism)?

I would suggest revising that question. There is no evidence that is objective and conclusively points to the existence of god, because all evidence that "may possibly point to the existence of god" has since been investigated and debunked or found inconclusive. More to the point, none of the properties denoting divinity have been measured or recorded in a reliable manner. I like your attempt at argument out of ignorance though.

Well, in the real world I wouldn't waste time, energy or money on things 'magical'. That would be a reasonable application of my non-belief with actual benefit to me, too..

What is divinity if not magical?

As far as explanatory power, I would see that apparently 'magic' occurrences are most likely deception, and would look for a natural explanation, which may lead to an expansion of my knowledge.

It would appear that this is exactly what atheists and agnostics and many religious folk have done. Thus the dwindling explanatory power of divine forces.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The label atheist carries a connotation of "god" along with it... a belief that yes for a fact or a belief in no for a fact. So just saying one way or the other supports the god concept in it's framework as a concept itself.

Moot doesn't matter either or existent or not. Nothing to discuss except perhaps how the two extremes are like a yin and yang symbol or an infinite circle of extremes keeping that entire system in motion... when moot just steps out of the way of that entire mass.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: TzarChasm

The label atheist carries a connotation of "god" along with it... a belief that yes for a fact or a belief in no for a fact. So just saying one way or the other supports the god concept in it's framework as a concept itself.

Moot doesn't matter either or existent or not. Nothing to discuss except perhaps how the two extremes are like a yin and yang symbol or an infinite circle of extremes keeping that entire system in motion... when moot just steps out of the way of that entire mass.

In a word, that's what igtheism means. You need a solid definition, substantial parameters rooted in reproducable data to work with if you really want to close the case. There are some parties who know that isn't possible at this time and they need wiggle room to keep dancing around that fact. But not everyone is willing to settle for "fuzzily defined terms". And there is still the matter of determining exactly how relevant the whole question is to the practicality of life as we live it and where we are trying to go and why. So many questions that don't really touch on what actually matters.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I like moot because the topic or concept of god needs no discussion. It means things to others and it means nothing to others so yes it bears discussion in how that has an effect.

Like superman is fictional but in the concept of his creation he has ceased to be fictional and something tangible to talk about read about, hold plastic action figures of watch movies with him as a topic so is he really fictional at that point having a real effect in the world?

Yes fictional but his existence as a conceptual being has a very real effect in the world... of course people aren't waging wars and killing each other over superman or in large armies fighting if batman is better than superman.

and if you don't care about comics or super heroes etc? Moot until people go to far in their love for that conceptual character and start killing over it.

This is why I consider such things as belief an expression of insanity... accepted insanity but insanity none the less.

double whopper w/cheese.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Having no evidence of purple bannanas does not mean that purple bannanas do not, or cannot, exist. Having no evidence of Ice-9 does not mean that Ice-9 does not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of the Higgs Boson does not mean that the Higgs Boson does not, or cannot, exist. Having no evidence of God does not mean that God does not, or cannot, exist.

But it does preclude purple bananas, ice-9, and the higgs boson (which really doesn't apply here as there is measurable data indicating its existence) from being pertinent in a productive discussion, particularly if its a definitive conclusion you are after.

I was using those examples to identify that an absence of evidence in no case leads to a logical assumption of non-existence. Having a deity as the object of such statements does not make the process of reasoning suddenly work in a different manner.

That atheism requires no objective evidence of the existence of a god (an absolute lack of evidence) is correct. But are you absolutely sure that there are no evidences that are objective and may possibly point to the existence of God (because that'd break atheism)?

I would suggest revising that question. There is no evidence that is objective and conclusively points to the existence of god, because all evidence that "may possibly point to the existence of god" has since been investigated and debunked or found inconclusive. More to the point, none of the properties denoting divinity have been measured or recorded in a reliable manner.

You say there is no such evidence but consider this statement by the astronomer Fred Hoyle, FRS;

"Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Then there is the work of the theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. who has said "if the equations of fundamental physics are based on information theory and essentially information theory is at the very center of string theory, how did it get there? And the implication is that indeed this is something for theologians to contemplate. You know, that was, again, for me a stunning assertion and it still has yet to be fully studied".

The evidences are real, existent, measurable, repeatable, numerous and objective. It is the interpretation of the evidence that is questioned. The statement that there is no objective evidence is false.

Or perhaps you are confusing evidence with the conclusions one may draw from it?

I like your attempt at argument out of ignorance though.

The agnostic argument is surely the argument out of ignorance - "I don't know, therefore... ".

Well, in the real world I wouldn't waste time, energy or money on things 'magical'. That would be a reasonable application of my non-belief with actual benefit to me, too..

What is divinity if not magical?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke.

By definition, in a monotheist cosmology, magic does not exist (except as deception and illusion). The only being who can act beyond the framework of the natural limitations established by God, is God. So divinity is not magical, it would more accurately be described as superior technology (knowledge and power to act).

As far as explanatory power, I would see that apparently 'magic' occurrences are most likely deception, and would look for a natural explanation, which may lead to an expansion of my knowledge.

It would appear that this is exactly what atheists and agnostics and many religious folk have done. Thus the dwindling explanatory power of divine forces.

Since science has not resolved such basic questions and if divine explanations have dwindling explanatory power, we must all be getting progressively stupider.

a reply to: chr0naut

I was using those examples to identify that an absence of evidence in no case leads to a logical assumption of non-existence. Having a deity as the object of such statements does not make the process of reasoning suddenly work in a different manner.

Are you familiar with the null hypothesis? I would refer you to it in the case of two phenomena being related, in this particular instance, purported existence and evidence confirming it.

You say there is no such evidence but consider this statement by the astronomer Fred Hoyle, FRS;

"Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Then there is the work of the theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. who has said "if the equations of fundamental physics are based on information theory and essentially information theory is at the very center of string theory, how did it get there? And the implication is that indeed this is something for theologians to contemplate. You know, that was, again, for me a stunning assertion and it still has yet to be fully studied".

I see a lot of begging the question here. Nothing substantial, just people positing personal interpretation as professional data. Let me know if your quotes include verifiable measurements of divine properties. It would be fun to do tests and confirm a few things besides other peoples opinions.

The evidences are real, existent, measurable, repeatable, numerous and objective. It is the interpretation of the evidence that is questioned. The statement that there is no objective evidence is false.

You have it backwards. The interpretation of the evidence is measurable and repeated able, but the evidence itself is still very much in question. Your statement that my statement is false is your opinion. You are welcome to it.

The agnostic argument is surely the argument out of ignorance - "I don't know, therefore... "

...therefore let's do some diligent and honest investigation so we don't build an empire of hypotheses on the quicksand of assumptions. You keep playing this game, chronaut, I know you are smarter and more original than this.

By definition, in a monotheist cosmology, magic does not exist (except as deception and illusion). The only being who can act beyond the framework of the natural limitations established by God, is God. So divinity is not magical, it would more accurately be described as superior technology (knowledge and power to act).

If divinity is merely superior technology, then it is not divinity, its superior technology. D'oh!

Since science has not resolved such basic questions and if divine explanations have dwindling explanatory power, we must all be getting progressively stupider.

If I may humbly make a suggestion, you should speak for yourself in that regard.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

I was using those examples to identify that an absence of evidence in no case leads to a logical assumption of non-existence. Having a deity as the object of such statements does not make the process of reasoning suddenly work in a different manner.

Are you familiar with the null hypothesis? I would refer you to it in the case of two phenomena being related, in this particular instance, purported existence and evidence confirming it.

Of course I am familiar with the null hypothesis. It has particular application in inferential statistics. Applying it to yes/no type questions isn't quite valid, IMHO, especially in light of what reason tells us; like that an absence of evidence for 'something' (anything) does not indicate that the 'something' does not exist.

The case "God exists" is a positive claim. The case "God does not exist" is also a positive claim. Not forming a conclusion either way, until you have sufficient evidence to make an informed decision, IS the null hypothesis in this case and also the default (by means of reason). I spoke of that quite a while ago in this thread, with Barcs.

You say there is no such evidence but consider this statement by the astronomer Fred Hoyle, FRS;
"Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Then there is the work of the theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. who has said "if the equations of fundamental physics are based on information theory and essentially information theory is at the very center of string theory, how did it get there? And the implication is that indeed this is something for theologians to contemplate. You know, that was, again, for me a stunning assertion and it still has yet to be fully studied".

I see a lot of begging the question here. Nothing substantial, just people positing personal interpretation as professional data. Let me know if your quotes include verifiable measurements of divine properties. It would be fun to do tests and confirm a few things besides other peoples opinions.

Hoyle's quote mentions the numbers produced by probabalistic mathematics and notes the improbability of the existent world by blind forces. That is objective, repeatable and evident to all who wish to repeat Hoyle's calculations.

Gates has found error correcting data structures within the mathematics of string theory. I know of no process behind reality that could have placed such coding other than an intelligence. Why would 'reality' or 'natural processes' seek so hard to enforce a single fundamental system that seems entirely dependent upon the later state of complexity of that system? It is not a case of something being 'as it is' by random action, over a period of time, it is a condition enforced from its very foundation, a property that is not emergent.

The evidences are real, existent, measurable, repeatable, numerous and objective. It is the interpretation of the evidence that is questioned. The statement that there is no objective evidence is false.

You have it backwards. The interpretation of the evidence is measurable and repeated able, but the evidence itself is still very much in question. Your statement that my statement is false is your opinion. You are welcome to it.

Evidence (especially in science) must usually be be interpreted.

For example, if liquid mercury is lifted against vacuum forces and gravitation in a barometer (the evidence), we can draw a conclusion about the pressure of the surrounding gas (the inferfence or conclusion we draw from the evidence).

So, there are things that seem to evidence an intelligence behind nature but that does not rule out other conclusions. The evidence is what it is, the conclusions we may form are vague. That is why scientific method includes experiment to test the conclusions and determine their truth.

The agnostic argument is surely the argument out of ignorance - "I don't know, therefore... "

...therefore let's do some diligent and honest investigation so we don't build an empire of hypotheses on the quicksand of assumptions.

That's why real science includes testing of assumptions. How does one test for the non-existence of something that is outside of restricted boundaries? At least the existence of something should be testable and evident.

To hold that an un-evidenced and un-testable case could be true seems particularly counter to all reason.

You keep playing this game, chronaut, I know you are smarter and more original than this.

By definition, in a monotheist cosmology, magic does not exist (except as deception and illusion). The only being who can act beyond the framework of the natural limitations established by God, is God. So divinity is not magical, it would more accurately be described as superior technology (knowledge and power to act).

If divinity is merely superior technology, then it is not divinity, its superior technology. D'oh!

To us, miracles may appear supernatural but to God, it's just modus operandi.

Since science has not resolved such basic questions and if divine explanations have dwindling explanatory power, we must all be getting progressively stupider.

If I may humbly make a suggestion, you should speak for yourself in that regard.

My humorous ironic observation about the inverse growth of knowledge if science has no answers and there is a reducing explanatory power to theism, was inclusive.

a reply to: chr0naut

Of course I am familiar with the null hypothesis. It has particular application in inferential statistics. Applying it to yes/no type questions isn't quite valid, IMHO, especially in light of what reason tells us; like that an absence of evidence for 'something' (anything) does not indicate that the 'something' does not exist.

The case "God exists" is a positive claim. The case "God does not exist" is also a positive claim. Not forming a conclusion either way, until you have sufficient evidence to make an informed decision, IS the null hypothesis in this case and also the default (by means of reason). I spoke of that quite a while ago in this thread, with Barcs.

Currently, there can be no conclusion reasonably arrived at. It is a moot question. This is the basis of igtheism, which (again) takes one more step and invites an examination of the relevance of this riddle to our practicality as a species. Is there not a more rewarding, more practical approach to deciding how we should conduct ourselves and where we should aim our future?

Hoyle's quote mentions the numbers produced by probabalistic mathematics and notes the improbability of the existent world by blind forces. That is objective, repeatable and evident to all who wish to repeat Hoyle's calculations.

Gates has found error correcting data structures within the mathematics of string theory. I know of no process behind reality that could have placed such coding other than an intelligence. Why would 'reality' or 'natural processes' seek so hard to enforce a single fundamental system that seems entirely dependent upon the later state of complexity of that system? It is not a case of something being 'as it is' by random action, over a period of time, it is a condition enforced from its very foundation, a property that is not emergent.

Improbable is still more likely than something that is impossible. Reality seeks nothing as it has no consciousness to seek with. And none of that changes the fact that those particular quotes I was addressing were speculating. They were asking questions and encouraging an unconfirmed resolution they personally found favorable or promising. That's not science, that is journalistic conjecture. Which they are welcome to do, but at least admit it is conjecture.

Evidence (especially in science) must usually be be interpreted.

For example, if liquid mercury is lifted against vacuum forces and gravitation in a barometer (the evidence), we can draw a conclusion about the pressure of the surrounding gas (the inferfence or conclusion we draw from the evidence).

So, there are things that seem to evidence an intelligence behind nature but that does not rule out other conclusions. The evidence is what it is, the conclusions we may form are vague. That is why scientific method includes experiment to test the conclusions and determine their truth.

There are such suggestions in nature, yes. Yet every time we devise the means to effectively study and measure their properties, we discover a far more mundane explanation. This has become a consistent pattern.

That's why real science includes testing of assumptions. How does one test for the non-existence of something that is outside of restricted boundaries? At least the existence of something should be testable and evident.

To hold that an un-evidenced and un-testable case could be true seems particularly counter to all reason.

You seem to have outlined the god problem very well.

To us, miracles may appear supernatural but to God, it's just modus operandi.

That adds nothing to the discussion. Do you have something substantial other than conjecture and platitudes? I would be fascinated to see it.

My humorous ironic observation about the inverse growth of knowledge if science has no answers and there is a reducing explanatory power to theism, was inclusive.

Says the guy who wastes his "god given talents" arguing with anonymous members on a conspiracy forum. Jesus must be proud. Or is it Thor? Maybe cuchulain son of lugh? There are so many to keep track of...

a reply to: TzarChasm

In a myriad of things known and unknown both are equal.

from nothing to nothing

this is good advice i'll take it.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Of course I am familiar with the null hypothesis. It has particular application in inferential statistics. Applying it to yes/no type questions isn't quite valid, IMHO, especially in light of what reason tells us; like that an absence of evidence for 'something' (anything) does not indicate that the 'something' does not exist. The case "God exists" is a positive claim. The case "God does not exist" is also a positive claim. Not forming a conclusion either way, until you have sufficient evidence to make an informed decision, IS the null hypothesis in this case and also the default (by means of reason). I spoke of that quite a while ago in this thread, with Barcs.

Currently, there can be no conclusion reasonably arrived at. It is a moot question.

It is only from the standpoint of atheist preconception (supposing a total absence of evidence for all time) that the question is unsolvable, because you can never know if there actually is no evidence, in the past, now, or forever.

On the other hand, if there is positive evidence found for the existence of God, then the theist case is proven. Even from the point that such evidence is unknown at any time, the theist case is still a possibility, but the issue, then, is our capability to capture such evidence. Taking theist preconceptions, the argument is not moot.

This is the basis of igtheism, which (again) takes one more step and invites an examination of the relevance of this riddle to our practicality as a species.

I got my 'knuckles rapped' when I suggested an alternate etymologically based definition for ignosticism. I think your "basis of igtheism" suggestion is similarly stretching the actual definition of the term.

Igtheism places a 'brick wall' in the way of any examination of relevance by suggesting that our terminology is not rigourous enough to use, stating that known definitions are indefinite in a real sense (something to which I would disagree).

Is there not a more rewarding, more practical approach to deciding how we should conduct ourselves and where we should aim our future?

Hoyle's quote mentions the numbers produced by probabalistic mathematics and notes the improbability of the existent world by blind forces. That is objective, repeatable and evident to all who wish to repeat Hoyle's calculations.

Gates has found error correcting data structures within the mathematics of string theory. I know of no process behind reality that could have placed such coding other than an intelligence. Why would 'reality' or 'natural processes' seek so hard to enforce a single fundamental system that seems entirely dependent upon the later state of complexity of that system? It is not a case of something being 'as it is' by random action, over a period of time, it is a condition enforced from its very foundation, a property that is not emergent.

Improbable is still more likely than something that is impossible.

When determinig the mass of the Higgs Boson, it was determined that a confidence where P = sigma-6, which equates to about a chance of 1 in 3,500,000 that the suspected mass was an experimental false positive, was assurance enough that they had located its mass. This is about the highest statistical sigma value applied in science as a determinant of what is acceptable as factual.

The probability statistics of the Hoyle Carbon 12 'resonance' represent a subatomic 36 body problem which is, at present, even beyond modern computational analysis to answer exactly. It is several orders of magnitude finer than the 1 in 3,500,000 that represents sigma-6 certainty. That is the reason it seems so well suited to the "fine tuning" issue. One might suggest that there isn't much difference between this particular low probability and impossibility.

Reality seeks nothing as it has no consciousness to seek with.

You are sure of that? Wouldn't God be the definition of the consciousness of reality?

And none of that changes the fact that those particular quotes I was addressing were speculating. They were asking questions and encouraging an unconfirmed resolution they personally found favorable or promising. That's not science, that is journalistic conjecture. Which they are welcome to do, but at least admit it is conjecture.

Evidence (especially in science) must usually be be interpreted.

For example, if liquid mercury is lifted against vacuum forces and gravitation in a barometer (the evidence), we can draw a conclusion about the pressure of the surrounding gas (the inferfence or conclusion we draw from the evidence).

So, there are things that seem to evidence an intelligence behind nature but that does not rule out other conclusions. The evidence is what it is, the conclusions we may form are vague. That is why scientific method includes experiment to test the conclusions and determine their truth.

There are such suggestions in nature, yes. Yet every time we devise the means to effectively study and measure their properties, we discover a far more mundane explanation. This has become a consistent pattern.

A few 'droplet' answers out of an entire 'sea' of questions is hardly a pattern. Nor is it consistent, as most answers lead to futher questions.

That's why real science includes testing of assumptions. How does one test for the non-existence of something that is outside of restricted boundaries? At least the existence of something should be testable and evident.
To hold that an un-evidenced and un-testable case could be true seems particularly counter to all reason.

You seem to have outlined the god problem very well.

It is the atheist case is always un-evidenced and un-testable, not the theist one.

To us, miracles may appear supernatural but to God, it's just modus operandi.

That adds nothing to the discussion. Do you have something substantial other than conjecture and platitudes? I would be fascinated to see it.

Do you have something substantial other than conjecture and platitudes?

My humorous ironic observation about the inverse growth of knowledge if science has no answers and there is a reducing explanatory power to theism, was inclusive.

Says the guy who wastes his "god given talents" arguing with anonymous members on a conspiracy forum. Jesus must be proud. Or is it Thor? Maybe cuchulain son of lugh? There are so many to keep track of...

If there is a rational consciousness that rules the universe, then things must exist for particular reasons. This has importance when contrasted against the choices we may make to either accommodate, or oppose, those reasons.

And as a battle of reasoning, it would surely be a waste of my God given talents if I did not reason things out.

I also find the debate entertaining.

a reply to: chr0naut

It is only from the standpoint of atheist preconception (supposing a total absence of evidence for all time) that the question is unsolvable, because you can never know if there actually is no evidence, in the past, now, or forever.

On the other hand, if there is positive evidence found for the existence of God, then the theist case is proven. Even from the point that such evidence is unknown at any time, the theist case is still a possibility, but the issue, then, is our capability to capture such evidence. Taking theist preconceptions, the argument is not moot.

That's why I said currently, because all the evidence up to now is all we can realistically examine. I don't give a fig about preconceptions. Preconceptions are the worst enemies science has.

I got my 'knuckles rapped' when I suggested an alternate etymologically based definition for ignosticism. I think your "basis of igtheism" suggestion is similarly stretching the actual definition of the term.

Igtheism places a 'brick wall' in the way of any examination of relevance by suggesting that our terminology is not rigourous enough to use, stating that known definitions are indefinite in a real sense (something to which I would disagree).

Because you offered a personal interpretation to suit your purposes. I could just as easily redefine god to suit mine, but I have no such agenda. I will stick with the Wikipedia definition, but nice try.

When determinig the mass of the Higgs Boson, it was determined that a confidence where P = sigma-6, which equates to about a chance of 1 in 3,500,000 that the suspected mass was an experimental false positive, was assurance enough that they had located its mass. This is about the highest statistical sigma value applied in science as a determinant of what is acceptable as factual.

The probability statistics of the Hoyle Carbon 12 'resonance' represent a subatomic 36 body problem which is, at present, even beyond modern computational analysis to answer exactly. It is several orders of magnitude finer than the 1 in 3,500,000 that represents sigma-6 certainty. That is the reason it seems so well suited to the "fine tuning" issue. One might suggest that there isn't much difference between this particular low probability and impossibility.

You are just full of things that one might suggest or infer. But nothing substantial, nothing conclusive. Too bad.

You are sure of that? Wouldn't God be the definition of the consciousness of reality?

We don't know because god is untested, unmeasured, unconfirmed in accordance with current standards of professional inquiry. As such, your suggestion is a "cool idea" but ultimately conjecture as it currently stands.

A few 'droplet' answers out of an entire 'sea' of questions is hardly a pattern. Nor is it consistent, as most answers lead to futher questions.

Actually, it is a pattern, even if you don't appreciate it (because it doesnt support your conclusion). And yes, answers will always lead to more questions. That's how it works.

It is the atheist case is always un-evidenced and un-testable, not the theist one.

And now you are repeating yourself...

Do you have something substantial other than conjecture and platitudes?

...and employing third grade tactics.

If there is a rational consciousness that rules the universe, then things must exist for particular reasons. This has importance when contrasted against the choices we may make to either accommodate, or oppose, those reasons.

And as a battle of reasoning, it would surely be a waste of my God given talents if I did not reason things out.

I also find the debate entertaining.

An ultimately fruitless endeavor, as he would tell you if he cared at all.

originally posted by: SLAYER69

You are after all a 'Higher Life form" with that regards. Do you imagine a time when we will be able (Given enough time) through various scientific advancements to eventually, one day not only live forever but also eventually come so far as to be a creative force and duplicate that which we ourselves were evolved from, complete with a set of genetic coding and spacial awareness and the medium within which to evolve?

If we were to eventually recreate that which we came from complete with all the supporting parameters wouldn't we then be 'The Creators" in a sense?

We are made of the very stuff we are experiencing in the Universe. It may be that each of us is God's way of experiencing the thrill of having limitations by vicariously sharing our life experiences of pain, suffering, frustration, and ecstasy. Each of us contributes a small part of our consciousness to complete the mind of God.

Now to expand this idea even further. If you combine the idea of a multiverse with the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics, and the idea that a star of sufficient mass collapsing to black hole creates a big bang in a newly formed space-time dimension, then time is a lot bigger than anything we could have ever imagined. Then in any given space-time dimension you have hard determinism. But over the entire multiverse you have free-will.

So over this larger view of time, there are in infinite number of yous making "good" choices. And there are an infinite number of yous making "bad" choices. Every possible choice you are capable of making exists and is played out in some dimension to its completion. Since all our choices are realized over all the dimensions in the multiverse each of us is neither "good" nor "evil" since all the versions of who we are exist in some way or another.

So if we are neither good nor evil, then what happens after we die. When we die we look into the face of God. We are so enamored, time ceases to exist as we get absorbed into the mind of God. God allows everyone to experience eternal heavenly bliss regardless of our earthly sins or how we practiced, or not practiced, our religion. Each version of you in each dimension of the multiverse gets absorbed into the mind of God. This way God realizes every possible configuration of quantum reality making up the entire mind of God in the multiverse over all the infinite dimensions.

P.S. I saw a really great bumper sticker the other day: CAUTION: In case of rapture this car may swerve as my mother-in-law takes the wheel.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

It is only from the standpoint of atheist preconception (supposing a total absence of evidence for all time) that the question is unsolvable, because you can never know if there actually is no evidence, in the past, now, or forever.

On the other hand, if there is positive evidence found for the existence of God, then the theist case is proven. Even from the point that such evidence is unknown at any time, the theist case is still a possibility, but the issue, then, is our capability to capture such evidence. Taking theist preconceptions, the argument is not moot.

That's why I said currently, because all the evidence up to now is all we can realistically examine. I don't give a fig about preconceptions. Preconceptions are the worst enemies science has.

If you have no evidence to examine, and have an opinion, all you have is preconceptions.

I got my 'knuckles rapped' when I suggested an alternate etymologically based definition for ignosticism. I think your "basis of igtheism" suggestion is similarly stretching the actual definition of the term.

Igtheism places a 'brick wall' in the way of any examination of relevance by suggesting that our terminology is not rigourous enough to use, stating that known definitions are indefinite in a real sense (something to which I would disagree).

Because you offered a personal interpretation to suit your purposes. I could just as easily redefine god to suit mine, but I have no such agenda. I will stick with the Wikipedia definition, but nice try.

You were defining igtheism differently to the Wikipedia definition, where you said; "This is the basis of igtheism, which (again) takes one more step and invites an examination of the relevance of this riddle to our practicality as a species"

When determinig the mass of the Higgs Boson, it was determined that a confidence where P = sigma-6, which equates to about a chance of 1 in 3,500,000 that the suspected mass was an experimental false positive, was assurance enough that they had located its mass. This is about the highest statistical sigma value applied in science as a determinant of what is acceptable as factual.

The probability statistics of the Hoyle Carbon 12 'resonance' represent a subatomic 36 body problem which is, at present, even beyond modern computational analysis to answer exactly. It is several orders of magnitude finer than the 1 in 3,500,000 that represents sigma-6 certainty. That is the reason it seems so well suited to the "fine tuning" issue. One might suggest that there isn't much difference between this particular low probability and impossibility.

You are just full of things that one might suggest or infer. But nothing substantial, nothing conclusive. Too bad.

What Hoyle and Gates were talking about is substantial and conclusive. Theirs are not the only evidences, either. You cannot reject the evidence when it is objective and testable. You can dispute the conclusions that may be drawn but the evidence itself, exists.

You are sure of that? Wouldn't God be the definition of the consciousness of reality?

We don't know because god is untested, unmeasured, unconfirmed in accordance with current standards of professional inquiry. As such, your suggestion is a "cool idea" but ultimately conjecture as it currently stands.

God has been tested, measured and confirmed many times over by many separate people. But science isn't the tool for the job. Science is not the only way we humans gain knowledge.

A few 'droplet' answers out of an entire 'sea' of questions is hardly a pattern. Nor is it consistent, as most answers lead to futher questions.

Actually, it is a pattern, even if you don't appreciate it (because it doesnt support your conclusion). And yes, answers will always lead to more questions. That's how it works.

Nope, not a pattern as science would define it it is statistically insignificant. You can't just abandon science whenever you feel like it.

An ultimately fruitless endeavor, as he would tell you if he cared at all.

Yes God cares. Yes, God tells me and shows me, in lots of ways. I have seen miraculous things.

a reply to: chr0naut

God has been tested, measured and confirmed many times over by many separate people. But science isn't the tool for the job. Science is not the only way we humans gain knowledge

You are still going on about this? Come on, dude. God has NOT been measured, tested OR confirmed by ANYBODY. You can't use the word confirm unless you are referring to science. Just because some dumbass makes an argument, doesn't mean that it measures or confirms anything. They are guesses and nothing more. Can't believe you don't get the difference between objective evidence and subjective evidence, and how you can prove things after all this time and everything that has been explained to you.

Please post the god measurements here if you really thing they exist outside of the "what if" philosophy. You can't measure something that can't be seen or verified objectively, it's just not possible. But yeah, please post the tests that have been done and how god has been confirmed. LOL.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

God has been tested, measured and confirmed many times over by many separate people. But science isn't the tool for the job. Science is not the only way we humans gain knowledge

You are still going on about this?

It's called 'having consistency'.

Come on, dude. God has NOT been measured

Neither has beauty, love, evil or the inability to apply simple rational logic. Because unless you measure it, it obviously can't be real, right?

You can't use the word confirm unless you are referring to science.

Perhaps it's in the definition & I just missed it?

Full dictionary definition of word 'confirm':

transitive verb

1: to give approval to : ratify [i.e: confirm a treaty]
2: to make firm or firmer : strengthen [i.e: confirm one's resolve]
3: to administer the religious rite of confirmation
4: to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact [i.e: confirm a rumor or confirm an order]

Nope, it would seem the definitions don't make any explicit mention of 'science' at all.

Just because some dumbass makes an argument, doesn't mean that it measures or confirms anything. They are guesses and nothing more. Can't believe you don't get the difference between objective evidence and subjective evidence, and how you can prove things after all this time and everything that has been explained to you.

All evidence is subjective, some subjective evidence is also objective, too. I know the difference, as I'm sure you also are quite aware. That you'd try and infer that I don't know, speaks volumes.

At least I have things which may be objective evidences (depending upon interpretation).

You, as you have pointed out before, have nothing. You quite literally have nothing to support your argument and you think that you are being rational and scientific!

Come on dude, fire up those synapses, get out of 'quote' mode and think for yourself!

Please post the god measurements here if you really thing they exist outside of the "what if" philosophy. You can't measure something that can't be seen or verified objectively, it's just not possible.

Some things exist that defy measurement, they just do.

You are so locked into an irrational mindset that you think measurement and objectivity only, equates with reality. The concept that there are things which scale differently for different observers, or that defy any system of regular measurement, seems to be far too big for your head.

But yeah, please post the tests that have been done and how god has been confirmed. LOL.

Please post a single logical line of reasoning that supports your argument and is not itself based upon some unreasoned and incognate nonsense.

a reply to: chr0naut

Hey chr0naut,

Hopefully this video will help you on the meaning of atheism.



Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hey chr0naut,

Hopefully this video will help you on the meaning of atheism.

Coomba98

I am aware of the definition of 'atheist' as one who does not have a belief in the existence of a god or otherwise.

Breeze-blocks and lump hammers are atheist by that definition too. as are all things with no cognitive ability.

Also, the guy in this vid talks so slowly. My coffee went cold while I waited for him to finish a sentence! Perhaps his synapses are way further apart than most peoples, you know, reducing his processing speed to that of an atheist (by your definition)?

a reply to: chr0naut

Hey chr0naut,

So am i to understand that your being facetious about atheism in your responses?

Coomba98