What does God do?

[Baldeee]

All things may be argued but a good place to start is having something that is reasonably established.

A good place to start, for me, is understanding whether there is a supportable position at all to be had.

I find nothing that suggests that the alleged relationship between humans and a presumed and as yet unevidenced God exists.

Sure, the clothes of a personal, interacting deity.
But it is unfalsifiable, and outside the remit of the methods you apply for establishing its veracity.
So why try.

My beef with the theist is their certainty of their belief which is presented without any foundation....in my view.

Ah, yes, a different argument there, to be sure.
But one should be wary of going from "I disagree that you can prove / be so certain of your position" to "I disagree with your position".

Absolutely....

I recognise it is no more sophisticated than two kids arguing "tis tisnt"☺
and no more productive.

Which is great if both sides understand that that is what it is.
Somewhat less great if one is trying to move any discussion forward.

Throw the baby out and use the water on the garden.

The soap may kill the flowers!

Yes but does not stop the theist from describing the wearer in detail or indeed the garments ,so to speak, and my effort is demanding that they offer more than wishful thinking...

Generally any claim made without reasonable support that presents a picture that there is a God who has dictated the scriptures such that their claims that the alleged relationship is more than wishful thinking.

But this is merely arguing against the garments, and not God per se.
I'm not saying one should not question the tailor, but when the argument reverts to discussion of the core notions of God (i.e. cause of all) as some like to do, then arguments of clothing are somewhat moot.

I see it as pointless to argue upon something we can only speculate upon.
Yet I do☺

So I have noticed.
I'm not saying you should stop, really just to be mindful of whether you're arguing against the tailor or the wearer itself, and not to dismiss the wearer simply because of the fit of their cloth.

Yes the add on gets to me and remember "its all made up"...now wouldnt that go great on a t shirt.

Hopefully with better punctuation, though.

 

[Michael 345]

There is no proof of such a metaphysical notion: no proof it ever existed or still exists.

Agreed

Being convinced is a matter of faith, not proof.

Agreed

Being convinced of something doesn't mean it is actually true, as I'm sure you'd agree.

Agreed but you seem to implying for it NOT to be true

Being convinced of something doesn't mean it is actually true, as I'm sure you'd agree

Equally it's not a impediment to it being true

You appear to pigeon hole god as the prime cause. OK I can go with that. For a short time.

So if as per DaveC 426913

If, tomorrow morning, a mile tall bearded guy parted the clouds, and turned the sun off for all odd-numbered street addresses, and gave all the fish in the sea the ability to speak, that would certainly be compelling.
If any doubting Thomas' didn't feel that was sufficient, he could certainly do anything that they decided would convince them.

which you dismiss as

Who is to say that that is God rather than just a very powerful entity?

you could ask this very powerful entity if they were the prime cause - I'm going out on a limb here expecting the answer to be yes and taking it on faith god does not lie

Of course if the answer is NO we will just have to wait until Science makes something out of nothing

Reminds me of the joke
Atheists (9th June 3034 - 2:30pm) finds himself in heaven and at his welcome chat with god says
"Your not great. We can do all you ever done thanks to Science"
God "OK show me"
Atheists reaches through the clouds on Earth picks up a bit of mud, shows it to god "I'm going to make a human out of this"
God "Your cheating"
Atheists "How so?"
God "Put that mud back, wash your hands. Now make your own mud first"

Science, as I understand, contends it is impossible for a state of NOTHING to exist

How this can be proven? - work in progress

 

[Baldeee]

Agreed but you seem to implying for it NOT to be true

No, I'm implying that it can't be known whether it is true or not.

Equally it's not a impediment to it being true

Exactly.
So which is it?
Can we ever know?
Or is taking a side simply a matter of faith?

You appear to pigeon hole god as the prime cause. OK I can go with that. For a short time.

I'm really just using the core notion of God, so as to separate the arguments, for exampl, of whether or not God exists from arguments about other aspects that one may attribute to God, the clothes he wears, so to speak.
Dismissing God because he's wearing a shirt you disagree with is not dismissing God (cause of all) but just dismissing a disagreeable-shirt-wearing God.
It's like rejecting the entire notion of the automobile because you don't agree with the colour, or because it has an automatic transmission etc.

you could ask this very powerful entity if they were the prime cause - I'm going out on a limb here expecting the answer to be yes and taking it on faith god does not lie

Yes, faith.

Of course if the answer is NO we will just have to wait until Science makes something out of nothing

Even if science does make something out of nothing, there will be discussions of whether this "nothing" is truly nothing or simply as much absence of things as we can achieve.

Science, as I understand, contends it is impossible for a state of NOTHING to exist

How this can be proven? - work in progress

And until it is anything more than that, as with so many other questions I find "I don't know" to be the only truly honest answer anyone can ever provide.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So why try.

To try is to accept that you wont win.
I accept that.
And its not as though any of my rants will change someones belief and I said this before...if I believed my rants could result in destroying someones faith I would not rant.
Well maybe I would but I would feel guilty.☺

"I disagree that you can prove / be so certain of your position" to "I disagree with your position".

A fine point I admit but heck I am too ignorant to make that distinction so I hope " its all made up" covers my position.

Somewhat less great if one is trying to move any discussion forward.

Equally before a discussion can take place perhaps the object of the discussion should be demonstrated to exist by those seeking to discuss the object of the discussion namely God.
Lets discuss aliens landing their space ships on Earth ...now if that discussion is to move from fiction to claim that it has or is actually happening perhaps it should be established, photos would be good, that there are aliens landing their space ships and where.etc.
There is little difference between a theist claiming there is a God and that he has reserved them a room at his place when they are dead and not have photos...to wild claims and made up stories that aliens are here.

The soap may kill the flowers!

If there is a God how could he allow such a thing.

I'm not saying one should not question the tailor, but when the argument reverts to discussion of the core notions of God (i.e. cause of all) as some like to do, then arguments of clothing are somewhat moot.

Yes I agree and if he is God he probably does not wear clothes...In fact I know thats the case...how do I know? Well I feel very strongly that is the way it must be...do you need more proof than that?

Hopefully with better punctuation, though

A subject and a predicate could be inconvenient given we really have no subject.

Good luck to you on your jouney to enlightenment..is there such a town..I bet there is.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

Science, as I understand, contends it is impossible for a state of NOTHING to exist

Since Science will be tasked with the creation of NOTHING in order to observe something appearing out of this NOTHING I'm sure there would be heaps of evidence for every Scientists to examine and verify results

However with the moon landings being suspect there could be the equivalent of a FF in the creationist midst who will hold out against believing

 

[Baldeee]

Michael, I noted that I'd inadvertently not included that bit you've just quoted as being your quote... so it appeared in my last post as though I was saying it rather than merely quoting it.
Now corrected, though.

 

[Michael 345]

Michael, I noted that I'd inadvertently not included that bit you've just quoted as being your quote... so it appeared in my last post as though I was saying it rather than merely quoting it.
Now corrected, though.

Sweet

 

[Yazata]

whatever it is that performs the metaphysical functions

Stop right there. There are NO metaphysical functions

Plain ordinary physics rules

So what explanation can you give for the existence of the "laws of physics"? For that matter, what explains mathematics and logic? (And how can all those explanations be given in non-circular fashion, without assuming precisely the things that they purport to explain?) Why is there a physical reality in the first place, in which physics applies?

Physics is naturalistic by its nature, it addresses natural spatial-temporal events and seeks natural explanations for them. (Methodological naturalism.) Physics typically does that by correlating one kind of natural event with another kind, in formal mathematical ways.

The kind of metaphysical question that I am addressing here is something more fundamental, the origin and existence of the natural world itself and of the principles that seemingly hold true within it. That's not the kind of question that's likely to be answered by correlating different kinds of physical events with mathematical functions. If physical reality is what requires explanation, then the answer may (or may not) require some explanatory principle that isn't included in physical reality. (Because if it was, the answer would be circular.)

The rest of the extract

The IEP article on 'Natural Theology'?

is basically anthropomorphism (love that word) you are giving to PROCESSES you (and probably at this stage everyone else) cannot currently explain

My point is merely that natural theology associates the metaphysical functions (first cause, source of cosmic order, fundamental ground of being, and so on) with the divine. That's traditional, it's older than Christianity and dates to the ancient Greeks (at least, we find it in India too). Making that move gives God plenty to do moment to moment. Which answers JamesR's question in the O.P.

As for me, I don't believe in the literal existence of the gods (as anything more than fictional characters). I don't think that confusing our outstanding metaphysical questions with divinities and with the myths surrounding them is helpful. As I said in my last post, I think that doing that just mystifies things.

You just don't give it a name but you imply its spooky and unknowable

Unknowable, perhaps. I am inclined to think that.

My view regarding this kind of stuff is agnostic. I don't have a clue what the ultimate answers are, assuming that answers even exist.

 

[Michael 345]

So what explanation can you give for the existence of the "laws of physics"?

Keys fit locks

Some atoms fit with other atoms better than with others. I would add NOT because they were purposefully designed in that manner. Almost Darwin's Theory of Evolution for Atoms and Matter

Chaos after the Big Bang until they (atoms etc) sorted themselves out

No rhyme or reason behind it. No grand plan. Given the sheer amount of energy involved in Big Bang it would be surprising if none of the stuff produced matched up with another bit

If the Big Bang produced the ingredients for the Universe we live in and the Universe contains conditions suitable for life why the surprise we live in the Universe we live in

 

[DaveC426913]

No, it couldn't.
Who is to say that that is God rather than just a very powerful entity?

At some point the rational person must acknowledge a preponderance of evidence.
If not, we would never have accepted Einstein's relativity.

God, if he appeared, would certainly be capable of providing a preponderance of evidence.

As I said, he could ask what would convince the Doubting Thomas'. If there's nothing that would convince them, then they've stopped being rational.

Being convinced is a matter of faith, not proof.
Being convinced of something doesn't mean it is actually true, as I'm sure you'd agree.

At some point, if he did enough parlor tricks, we could be as certain of him as we are of the germ theory of disease and the atomic theory of matter.


And if we, as atheists, don't acknowledge that our convictions could be changed with sufficient evidence, then we re as guilty of irrationality as any theist.

 

[Baldeee]

At some point the rational person must acknowledge a preponderance of evidence. God, if he appeared, would certainly be capable of providing a preponderance.

As I said, he could ask what would convince the Doubting Thomas'. If there's nothing that would convince them, then they've stopped being rational.

Being convinced of something isn't sufficient to determine that it is true, though.
What would you consider as sufficient evidence that something is God, the cause of all, rather than just a powerful entity, for example?

At some point, if he did enough parlor tricks, we could be as certain of him as we are of the germ theory of disease and the atomic theory of matter.

We would be certain of something, for sure, but why would we be so certain that it is God?
How do you possibly evidence being the cause of all?

And if we, as atheists, don't acknowledge that our convictions could be changed with sufficient evidence, then we re as guilty of irrationality as any theist.

Sure, some of the clothes that God is claimed to wear could be evidenced, but God might not be the only possibility of wearers of such clothes.
And while I have no doubt one could be convinced of a very powerful entity as you suggest, how would one differentiate between this and God (cause of all)?
I'm not saying it couldn't be, but I don't know how it could be.

 

[Yazata]

No, it couldn't.
Who is to say that that is God rather than just a very powerful entity?

I agree with Baldeee about that. It's what I think of as 'the Independence Day Problem' (from that 1990's alien invasion movie).

It basically asks -- what sort of events would justify the conclusion that we have encountered a god as opposed to a "very powerful entity"? That movie more or less illustrated (however implicitly) that a glorious light-show in the heavens wouldn't be sufficient. The ufo nuts all gathered on top of the building in LA and celebrated the coming of the space gods... until they vaporized LA.

So... what is it that makes a super-powered space-alien, however splendid, impressive and inexplicable it might appear, into something worthy of religious worship?

There's some missing ingredient here, one that religious people would probably call 'Holiness'. I don't have a clue how a mere mortal like me is supposed to recognize that.

God, at its core, is the cause of all causes - whether one is a deist, a theist, and irrespective of all the trappings one applies to it, that is God (capital G).

Or the ultimate fundamental explanation, that which explains everything else while itself needing no explanation.

There is no proof of such a metaphysical notion: no proof it ever existed or still exists.

Yes, I agree. I'm not sure if such a thing even makes sense, let alone how to recognize it if it does exist.

Being convinced of something doesn't mean it is actually true, as I'm sure you'd agree.

Much of our conceptual apparatus, logic and reason might fit in that class of things we are convinced about but can't justify (certainly not without circularity since we would presumably have to employ reason to justify reason).

 

[Vociferous]

Already answered it.

Oh, you mean this:

The distinction matters to distinguish different interpretations of action.

"Different interpretations of action?" Like what?

Who said indeterminacy grants free will?

This guy.

So you're denying the indeterminacy of synaptic action potentials in favor of scientism?

You're reading things that just aren't there.

Why make a point of neurochemistry being influenced by indeterminate action?

To challenge your seemingly dogmatic belief in determinism.

 

[Michael 345]

How do you possibly evidence being the cause of all?

Ask him to do what God has been said to have done in the past - only more so

Don't just ask for a flood. Get rid of the whole Universe. Wait 5 minutes - bring it back exactly the same as it was 5 minutes ago

How do you possibly evidence being the cause of all?

No convinced?

I contend if not convinced with that parlour trick you are in effect saying

"Well it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, moves like a duck buuuut I'm still not sure. What else you got?"

With that you vanish in a puff of smoke.
It's true - even god has some limatations

 

[Musika]

So... what is it that makes a super-powered space-alien, however splendid, impressive and inexplicable it might appear, into something worthy of religious worship?

There's some missing ingredient here, one that religious people would probably call 'Holiness'. I don't have a clue how a mere mortal like me is supposed to recognize that.

I touched on this in an earlier response :

If you mean to ask how can one arrive atan understanding of God outside of scientific investigation (and thus take the question outside of mere "suggestions"), perhaps it could be helpful to look at how two entities, vastly different in their powers interact.

It's not a completely sound analogy, but for the focus of this one point in particular, it should be sufficient:

Take the example of the remote tribes of the Andaman Islands. Currently they are under the sovereignty of India and all the technological resources afforded by a 21st century econony. The indian government has strict guidelines preventing any outside influences coming to the tribespeople (aside from the hostility they displayed to visitors, there is some concern that their isolation has rendered them vulnerable to the host of diseases we are likely to introduce to them). The tribespeople subsist off foraging and have no seafaring means of transport.
If the tribespeople were to somehow have an understanding of the national sovereignty they are currently existing under, how would it be aroused?
What would be the basis for them ever hoping to understand the situation in any accurate manner, outside of the realm of mere "suggestions"?

 

[DaveC426913]

What would you consider as sufficient evidence that something is God, the cause of all, rather than just a powerful entity, for example?

Hm.

Well, that does raise the question then: is there anything at all god could do that could convince an atheist he's the real McCoy?
If not, that puts us in an awkward position.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I think Baldee made the only valid observation in this entire thread to the effect that we dont know.

I would add to that ...we dont know that we can never know and that we dont know that we can never know and there are things that we dont know we dont know.

Whenever these matters are discussed folk present logic or faith but neither takes these types of discussions to a recognition of the fact that we dont know.

And that just because we dont know that does not entitle us to make stuff up.

What I see as a problem arises when the theist forms an opinion and lables it faith and proceeds as if faith is fact and forgets that they simply dont know and can never know.

Although I do think if an event took place like Dave suggested of a being saying it can make fish talk and then delivers on that claim that would certainly be compellling.

But even such could be thought to be the act of a being capable of mass hypnosis and have sceptics say its just a sophisticated magic trick.

However following this discussion one can observe the process humans use to determine reality.

They form an opinion and then become convinced they are correct using anything at hand to assure themselves they are correct and have found the correct answer.

But we still dont know.

I find speculation interesting but when speculation concludes it has the answers that is where I sign off.

Even the BBT as nicely as the theories are put together and the observation neatly fit the theory most think we now know ...but really we dont.

We all say well a model can be changed but is that really the case?

BBT on first presentation did not consider the sameness problem but when that problem arose who said "well the theory is wrong lets try something else" no the model needs adjustment and the theory of inflation was introduced to save the model.

When the absence of lithium in the stars was observed and not what BBT predicted again the model was fixed by adding to the model a mechanism that showed how the lithium was present a some point but through the process we have worked out it is now not there and by virtue of it not being there this is further evidence BBT is correct.

Thats how humans work once they form a belief they continue to justify it by all means at their disposal.

After all they are right in their mind.

I am not a scientist but I seem to be good at it in so far as I realise we deal with models and do not say our science is the truth.

Who however would come forward and say such in relation to the BBT for example...and when observation told us the galllaxy rotation did not follow our model did anyone for even a moment consider the prospect the model may be wrong in this application which would seem s reasonable responce and one I would ecpect from science ...well we determine that there must be a new subatomic particle that is only evidenced by applying our model to the observations...and sadly what else would be an acceptable responce...

scientific models work on the basis of one strike and you are out...maybe that should change as clearly GR model and theNewtonian Gravity both work.. one model better than the other model but Newtonian Gravity is successful enough to be , as I understand, the only model used to plan the routes of our space craft.

So when the rotational curve problem presented why could we not simply acknowledge both GR and Newtonian Gravity models perhaps need adjustment such that their need for brand new matter was avoided?

It boils down to this..if a human is invested in an idea they become arrogantly right and although others may find reasonable flaws in their faith or model they will not address those flaws other than to patch their faith as to reality or their model of reality.

I would offer the following as an openning qualification to all theists and and perhaps all those who believe the duty of science is to deliver the truth...
So my suggested qualification...
"We really dont know but based upon ( here insert scriptures or scientific models) we believe ( here insert your conclusions about reality)."☺

I rant about the non existence of God and I am comfortable with that position but I dont know.

I am most comfortable with how our science describes reality but I still really dont know.

I prefer science in so far as all conclusions are arrived at from tieing opinion (initial hypothisis) to observation and with the aid of maths make testable predictions...religion arrive at conclusions and take it from there and make untestable predictions with an alarming absence of observational evidence.

So even a sceptic like me can find that science at least may show me the truth even if that is not what it sets out to do...whereas religion merely says we know the truth if you dont beliebe go rot in hell.

Let the speculation continue and lets get back to the op...heck I cant remember without looking..

I looked...so the question is what does God do and so far we have nothing...but I guess that is all we can expect given that we dont know if there is indeed a God.

Alex

 

[Musika]

I think Baldee made the only valid observation in this entire thread to the effect that we dont know.

I would add to that ...we dont know that we can never know and that we dont know that we can never know and there are things that we dont know we dont know.

Whenever these matters are discussed folk present logic or faith but neither takes these types of discussions to a recognition of the fact that we dont know.

And that just because we dont know that does not entitle us to make stuff up.

However even this position begets a type of faith.

How do you know no one can know?

 

[river]

This god is about .....?

 

[Jan Ardena]

If God "just is" then by the definition of just you are using (as in: "only, or no more than"), that means your answer to the OP is that he doesn't do anything.

From your perspective, there is no God.

Jan.