TTI Forums

Sophid wrote:One of Arthur C. Clarke's three laws is that technology that is sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic... If we encounter a being or beings who can do these things, would it truly be supernatural?

No. And they'd be able to explain to us the science involved, (if they wished to).

Petyr Baelich wrote:

Sophid wrote:One of Arthur C. Clarke's three laws is that technology that is sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic... If we encounter a being or beings who can do these things, would it truly be supernatural?

No. And they'd be able to explain to us the science involved, (if they wished to).

Well yes if the gap between us an the aliens is small.

But what about if we are so far apart that we can not bridge the gap? Kurt Vonnegut touched on this in Slaughter House Five, the Tralfamadorian’s in his story are this distant, and Billy Pilgrim (the human protagonist) is powerless much like an insect might be to us in a terrarium. In that story/circumstance I don’t think humans would ever develop a science to bridge the Tralfamadorian gap.

In the absence of understanding, would we call the Tralfamadorians Gods? If so then I think the probability for the existence of God has moved up a few pegs.

Cameron: 'You find the thought of no after life comforting?'
House: 'No, I find it comforting that all this isn't just a test'

I love House.

musashi wrote:In the absence of understanding, would we call the Tralfamadorians Gods?

My rational mind would tell me that they are not magical, supernatural beings, they are just technologically advanced, even impossibly so. But look at the lives we live now compared to the lives our ancestors lived, say, 9000 years ago... Would they be able to adapt, understand our technology, culture, the things that we do for a living? And there have even been significant genetic changes between now and then... Give humans another 100,000 years to develop, and if we don't destroy ourselves I am confident we would find ourselves very god-like as well...

Sophid wrote:But look at the lives we live now compared to the lives our ancestors lived, say, 9000 years ago... Would they be able to adapt, understand our technology, culture, the things that we do for a living?

I think those archaic men stand a much better chance of rivaling modern man, than would say a spider, a dolphin or an octopus. That reminds me of a joke..
A spider, dolphin, and octopus crawl, swim and slither into a bar…

I refer to these lower life forms in analogy, because in that supernatural hypothetical setting humankind would be the lower life form. Our capacity to reason and adapt while great, might be comparable to that of one of these lower life forms to man. In that context I don’t think an octopus bridges the scientific and technical gap.

Man will certainly remain omnipotent and weld dominion over these lower life forms, under almost any conceivable combination of future events.

An easy test to the proof - die.

If he exists you will meet him, if he doesn't you won't care as you're dead!

Kaelan wrote:An easy test to the proof - die.

If he exists you will meet him, if he doesn't you won't care as you're dead!

Unless you find a way to come back after dying and finding the answer - we still don't have a proof. Not to mention that the experiment would need to be repeatable by others. The destructive test is always least desirable.

I think it's safe to say that everybody will try this experiment at least once in their life. If you do find a way to perform repeat experiments you're going to be a rich man!

MidasMulligan,

The weakness in your argument is that God can be beyond the Universe. The Universe is everything we know based on science, but science does prove or disprove that something exists beyond the Universe. Or even an alter universe (supernatural).

By your own Premise, it is impossible to prove God with science as god is Supernatural and science only deals with the natural (what can be measured, observed, reproduced).

To really say that there is absolutely no god would mean that you would need to have the power to go beyond science, beyond the universe, beyond everything to see (for yourself) that no God is out there. In essence, you would have to be God yourself to see beyond the stars to know nothing is really out there.

This is not to say a God exists, or does not exist. What I am saying is that it would take a leap of faith to be able to say that you are absolutely sure no god exists or that the natural world is the only world. And, ironically, faith is what you use to believe in God.

Sophid wrote:Religion exists for two reasons: to overcome the fear of death, and to explain the unexplainable.

I thought it existed to give people guidelines/commandments under which to live their lives by.

I thought it was to counter the power of Falcon before the nerf.

Yay a 'lets debunk God' thread. I like it already.

Lets just stick with the Christian God for purposes of ease. We can leave elephant-people, zeus, gaia, and the others out for purposes of utility in argument. (although those are as easily debunked).

The analogy of an advanced race seeing humans as somewhat of an insect and therefore appearing god-like is compelling. I would also agree that if there was such a thing as a God or Gods that being such an omnipotent creature/entity would follow that it has larger things to cook up than bothering with pesky humans on a day to day basis - after all the universe is a complicated, dangerous place with untold numbers of things to manipuate on a regular basis. If I was a God i'd have much better things to do. Perhaps i'll create a supernova today or even throw a couple galaxies together for shits and giggles - I am a deity of course so I can do that. Toying with humans or even bothering myself with taking a peek at what theyre doing? Not so much.

Christian superstition tells us that God sends all sorts of manifestations to meddle in Earthly affairs. If this were really true and the Christian God was REALLY as omnipotent as they claim to keep their followers 'in line' it would not need to send agents to terra firma because its universal ability would negate such a need. Yes superstitions such as these served a purpose for early man to bring comfort to an inexplicable life. But, for the most part and in general circumstances, we can fully explain away a majority of the things we need to. Religeon has outlived its usefulness really.

We almost don't need god anymore. The one thing that Christians could latch onto is a lack of explanation of the universe or point of creation beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, this will not hold forever either as we are quickly moving to set aside such questions via science. The real question we should ask ourselves is - what exactly are we going to do with all these damn churches once society snaps out of it, learns to read, and use rationality to lead life (people are stupid so this wont happen anytime soon)? Homeless shelters? Hippie communes? Child-rape rehabilitation centers (cathedrals)? I for one am open to suggestion.

There are actually two questions where "God" is concerned. One, did someone/something create our reality, and two, did he/she/it interfere during the unfolding of history?

These are not as easy to answer as it might otherwise be.

First, there is the frame of reference argument; our ability to measure reality is based on our senses, which have been known to be fooled. Reason can help with that over time, as a basic theory can produce testable hypotheses that can strengthen or weaken the theory. However, we are still limited to what our senses can input; as it has been mentioned, unless we can exit the universe or perceive additional dimensions, the best we can do are educated guesses based on a reasonably stable theory.

Second, keep in mind that the second law of thermodynamics indicates that all things tend toward entropy; you cannot have 100% efficiency. Even the natural world follows this law. This can be extrapolated toward what is known as the "heat death" of the universe, where all energy is converted to an unusable form... essentially "winding down" the universe, as it were. This can also be reasonably extrapolated toward a beginning point where there was an immense amount of (or perhaps nothing but) energy. We can guess as to what seeded the creation of the universe, but there's no way of knowing just what was the source of the energy, or what form of irritant induced the theoretical explosion from which we all were formed... if explosion it truly was.

As for the actual interaction of some God, getting an accurate account would be almost as unlikely, as all literature, history or otherwise, was written by people, fallable people who had more questions, and were trying to find answers.

Of course, this is a really roundabout way of saying "Without a new source of perception outside our existing 4-dimensional cage, or a time machine to do some observation of our own in the past, proving or disproving God would be impossible, and attempting to do either is a waste of time better served by studying things that can be understood."

Or maybe I'm just prepping myself for a pedectomy... on a side note, I'm surprised the noodly one hasn't been referenced yet.

reteo wrote:Of course, this is a really roundabout way of saying "Without a new source of perception outside our existing 4-dimensional cage, or a time machine to do some observation of our own in the past, proving or disproving God would be impossible, and attempting to do either is a waste of time better served by studying things that can be understood."

Welcome to the forums reteo. How would a time machine be useful in testing for the presence of GOD?

musashi wrote:Welcome to the forums reteo. How would a time machine be useful in testing for the presence of GOD?

One with a time machine can then travel around to verify the claims made in religious texts. Verifying religious claims would likely strengthen the "god exists" theory, unless scientific explanations could be found for all the "god" phenomena.

reteo wrote:

musashi wrote:Welcome to the forums reteo. How would a time machine be useful in testing for the presence of GOD?

One with a time machine can then travel around to verify the claims made in religious texts. Verifying religious claims would likely strengthen the "god exists" theory, unless scientific explanations could be found for all the "god" phenomena.

Except that time travel is paradoxical.

What strengthens religious claims is people who dont want to make decisions for themselves.

Nobody comes back from the grave. Nobody can walk on water. Nobody can transmute water into wine. Burning bushes do not talk.

Sellmak wrote:Except that time travel is paradoxical.

Grandfather, or predestination?

Sellmak wrote:What strengthens religious claims is people who dont want to make decisions for themselves.

There's a vast gulf of difference between religion and the proof of a vastly more powerful being that may have set this universe in motion (as a creator or an irritant in the initial energy source). Religion claims responsibility for one's actions, while a more powerful being, if they exist, well, just is. The former is obviously false, but the latter cannot be proven or disproven without direct evidence of either the being itself, or the alternative source, and we are so completely removed from both that it makes no difference.

Sellmak wrote:Nobody comes back from the grave. Nobody can walk on water. Nobody can transmute water into wine. Burning bushes do not talk.

There is documented evidence of the dead being revived, just not the long-dead. As for walking on water, there are the ice-fishermen and there have been inventors who have created floating shoes within the last few years. Using absolutes on generalities is a very bad idea in general.

I realize you are referring to the "miracles of Christ," but keep in mind that just because these things are impossible in nature, and impossible for humans at the time, does not mean that a heat-resistant (possibly holographic) micro-transmitter could not have been placed in the bush, that nanite machines could not have been introduced into Yeshua's bloodstream to preserve brain tissue and revive him three days later, that matter transmission could not have replaced the water with wine, or that antigravity technology might not have allowed Yeshua to hover over the water. Even the dangers of the Ark of the covenant could be safely accepted as valid because the whole thing was one big leyden jar with a static generator.

While the human race may not have had that technology at the time, it is possible that another being might have, hence the argument that this higher-powered, advanced being cannot be absolutely discredited with the information available to us at this time, although any claims to absolute justness can be safely discredited.

reteo wrote:One with a time machine can then travel around to verify the claims made in religious texts. Verifying religious claims would likely strengthen the "god exists" theory, unless scientific explanations could be found for all the "god" phenomena.

Verifying prophecy might possibly strengthen the "GOD exists" theory. But verifying a “predict & effect” situation is not as strong as proving a “cause & effect” situation. Is there an amount of corroborated prophecy that can prove the existence of GOD? I’d have to set that bar mighty high. Again considering that the outside influence in the system could be caused but a greater being and not GOD.

Having a time machine would be nice, but I just don't understand how I can find GOD with it.

Every town has a prophet; you just can’t be a prophet in your own home town.

musashi wrote:Verifying prophecy might possibly strengthen the "GOD exists" theory. But verifying a “predict & effect” situation is not as strong as proving a “cause & effect” situation.

No, verifying 'historical claims,' in which 'historical' events recorded in religious texts can then be verified by a rational third party, although it would be interesting to verify prophecy as well... I didn't even think of that.

musashi wrote:Having a time machine would be nice, but I just don't understand how I can find GOD with it.

I only argued God in a "greater being" context. I apologize if I implied otherwise. Essentially, we could directly observe the 'miraculous' events in the past with modern-day understanding of the world to see if there are alternate explanations for the phenomenon. It's by no means a perfect method, but it beats proof based on guesswork.

The thing that would be required to prove or disprove God-as-creator would be the ability to perceive the universe beyond the 4-dimensional cage in which we live in addition to time travel, and I don't see that happening.

trustzoe wrote:MidasMulligan, the weakness in your argument is that God can be beyond the Universe.

It's actually one of the premises. The idea of God is something that is beyond the universe. Although I can type those words and you can read them, it's absurd, in the literal sense of the word, like saying something is all red and all greed at the same time. That's the point. You're saying God might still "exist" even though he's outside of our ability to comprehend, but you can't use the word "exist" because if something exists it conforms to certain measurable and comprehensible properties. There's actually no non-absurd way to word your argument. You can't even say "something is outside the universe" because every word in that sentence besides "the" and "universe" are made absurd by context.

If it's outside the universe, how do you know it's a thing? How can it be some thing? Are there other things it can be apart from? What makes a thing a thing, outside the universe? Is it outside physically, separated by distance? If not, then what does that mean? What do you mean by "is?" Et cetera...

PS: Clinton jokes RE definition of "is" are hereby shunned in advance.

Can no longer resist thread.

There is a god, his name is Billy, when he reboots the computer we are screwed. (disprove please)

The above statement shows the absurdity of the debate, that anyone past a certain point in the study of science or philosophy should know better than to engage in on certain subjects (god being the main one).

Oh, I'll jump back in.

tldr: Logic doesn't work on theists.

This whole thread is absurd. Sorry, everyone who put serious thought into it, but there really is very little point, beyond stretching your mental muscles. Which, can be fun from time to time, so don't think I begrudge you that.

Anyhoo, from the perspective of the theist, God will always exist just a little bit beyond what we understand. We understand (yes, in a very vague and childish sort of way) the universe. We're pretty confident about its size, have some good ideas as to its shape, and are able to project its age. God, of course, is outside of all this.

To the atheist, this is silly - the minute God interacts with the universe in a scientifically demonstrable manner, he effectively ceases to be God - he becomes part of the universe. This is, of course, silly. However, you can't convince the theist of this, no matter how much scientific and logical evidence you have, because God is, practically by definition, that which is just outside of your evidence.

Which, I suppose is a nice little proof that God can't exist in and of itself. God is that which is outside of understanding, and I happen to believe that there are essentially no limits on human understanding. The only God that can exist is one which is completely irrelevant.

Anders Chydenius wrote:Oh, I'll jump back in.

tldr: Logic doesn't work on theists.

Anyhoo, from the perspective of the theist, God will always exist just a little bit beyond what we understand. We understand (yes, in a very vague and childish sort of way) the universe. We're pretty confident about its size, have some good ideas as to its shape, and are able to project its age. God, of course, is outside of all this.

To the atheist, this is silly - the minute God interacts with the universe in a scientifically demonstrable manner, he effectively ceases to be God - he becomes part of the universe. This is, of course, silly. However, you can't convince the theist of this, no matter how much scientific and logical evidence you have, because God is, practically by definition, that which is just outside of your evidence.

This is true. However, you are combining two assumptions into one. People worshipped God, believing that God is the master of (or part of) everything. The problem with many theist/atheist arguments is that they tie together "The being we refer to as God exists" and "The being we refer to as God is a perfect being," which are two different claims.

Now, it's a given that the word "God" essentially means "Perfect being," but just because the being exists doesn't necessarily mean that said being is perfect, because while we may refer to it as "God," it may not refer to itself as "God," but simply be something more advanced. The answer to this question is quite possible if the being, advanced as it is, resides within the same 4-dimensional cage we are in. It is less-likely if the being resides on a more complex scale.

Anders Chydenius wrote:Which, I suppose is a nice little proof that God can't exist in and of itself. God is that which is outside of understanding, and I happen to believe that there are essentially no limits on human understanding. The only God that can exist is one which is completely irrelevant.

Well, it definitely would prove that whatever being we call "God" really isn't. It does not, however, discredit the existence of the being referred to as "God."

reteo wrote:Now, it's a given that the word "God" essentially means "Perfect being," but just because the being exists doesn't necessarily mean that said being is perfect, because while we may refer to it as "God," it may not refer to itself as "God," but simply be something more advanced. The answer to this question is quite possible if the being, advanced as it is, resides within the same 4-dimensional cage we are in. It is less-likely if the being resides on a more complex scale.

This reads to me as if it is more possible for this perfect being to exist in 4D space than in more complex space. Is that the position you intended? The opposite seems more likely to me.

Reteo you make some great points about this omnipotent entity religions attempt to define as GOD. I could easily hit half a dozen major characteristics of GOD, from a Christian perspective. Then research and find a few hundred characteristics of GOD from a Vedic perspective. And just like a unified field theory, any proof would have to formally address each of those characteristics. It is a very big job. Deriving that proof just might be the rock too big for GOD to lift.

musashi wrote: This reads to me as if it is more possible for this perfect being to exist in 4D space than in more complex space. Is that the position you intended? The opposite seems more likely to me.

It would certainly make the "meddling aliens" argument easier to swallow if we keep it within our existing dimensions. However, just because it's easier for our perception to perceive 4D space, that doesn't change the possibility, it only changes our estimation of what's likely.

musashi wrote:Reteo you make some great points about this omnipotent entity religions attempt to define as GOD. I could easily hit half a dozen major characteristics of GOD, from a Christian perspective. Then research and find a few hundred characteristics of GOD from a Vedic perspective. And just like a unified field theory, any proof would have to formally address each of those characteristics. It is a very big job. Deriving that proof just might be the rock too big for GOD to lift.

More importantly, there is no certainty that we're even talking about the same being. It could be that the polytheists are right and that there are multiple "gods," several powerful beings who are simply mucking about with those weird hairless apes on Sol-3... or whatever alien designation our star and planet receives.