TTI Forums

Figured this would be as good as anything to introduce myself to a prospective employer (I have a sick and warped mind I guess).

Let me first state, for the record, I do believe in God. To state the level of my faith I’ll put it simply. I believe in the existence of such a being more so then I have faith that my truck will start when I try to go to work in the morning, this is partially because I’m 2000 miles overdue for an oil change. For the sake of keeping this simple, the tense of the post will be that he does exist, because I really find it annoying to write does/does-not 35 times in a paragraph. Let me also state for the record that I am not well versed in the different arguments by other philosophers referenced in this topic. I try to keep my philosophy original, plus it keeps me from having to place in 20 books for reference.

The question now is where to start? There are so many points that I would like to make, and I doubt many will make sense to a healthy number that read this, particularly the first time around. I have now spend over 24 hours writing this, and utilizing multiple drafts, in an attempt to relay my message as clearly as possible, however this is a subject that generally refuses to communicated in a concise manner. This is my strongest attempt so far, but if you still are unable to relate to my arguments, please understand the reasons is not because the soundness of my logic, but my inability as a communicator. Now let us begin.

First and foremost: as stated earlier, this is not a subject or a debate that will ever be settled, so there’s no reason to get emotional over it, this is truly an academic debate. Understanding why one is involved in the debate is most important. I believe that those who are involved strictly to eradicate a point of view on such a subject are in this debate for the wrong reasons and lack objectivity. As such I personally believe it will lead to their overall intellectual destruction. That being said, it would be unjust in my mind if I fail to offer the reasons I’m involved for the sake of clarity. I utilize such debates to correct, strengthen, and improve my views, beliefs and logical capabilities (weed out the contradictions). Allow us to continue.

As was stated earlier, the act of believing is a choice, as is the act of not believing. Both require faith in their own ways. The fact of the matter is to utilize an argument that it is not provable either way is stupid. The best example was Billy, which I find most comical particularly because the type of person I am, I am now willing to accept that as a real possibility (I’m more in line with the Skeptic and Socratic schools of thought then Aristotelian and Plutonic). The fact is we have no idea. I disagree with the before statement that we have a child-like understanding in the universe, we fail to even have that level of understating, an infant-like understanding is more appropriate, and an embryo-like understanding is probably more accurate (some of the latest scientific theories are laughable and require more faith to believe then any religion I am aware of). With that, can you truly be arrogant enough to state you have undeniable proof that God does, or does not exist? Those who do lack understating of the awe a true god would inspire. Imagine a being of infinite intelligence, basically knows everything there possibly cold be known in this universe and then some, I truly can’t wrap my mind around it completely, and I consider myself not shy of neurons to rub together. The easiest way of describing such a thing in science would be an extra-dimensional being, or a sentient form of energy. Since neither would realistically be effected by time. These appear to be the most likely (not guaranteed) forms in which a god would exist, I’m not ruling out Billy though. But even that stated, there is no need, or evidence (either way to be honest) that God is actively sentient, or in fact is aware of the awesome “power” he possesses. A common way of putting this is that we are just some poor bastards bad dream, and god (all pun intended) save us when he wakes up.
What I’m attempting to point out here is not my personal beliefs and why you should convert, but instead showing the obvious closed mindedness in all the communities that have ever been even in the slightest bit aggressive on either of this, and any other, debate. My advice: free your mind!!!!!!!!! (There is no spooooooooooooon!!!!!!!!!jk) Seriously though the augments on both sides of this issue have been filled with so many assumptions, that they lack any real foundation. This is why one has been able to use the exact same logical sequence to both prove and disprove the existence of god. They possess incorrect premises. What I suggest to those who wish to seriously debate this, drop your premises, and keep an open mind. Forgive me the heresy of using an atheist for a reference but Ms. Rand did once effectively state that the reason for such discussions is not to argue, but to come closer to the truth.

Now with that in mind, I wish to point out my utter dissatisfaction with those who have lacked respect for the other side in this debate, under no circumstances is that acceptable. I know I disagree with most Objectivist with my belief in a God, however it is intellectually unsound to, for that reason alone, to use any form of derogatory statement in reference to those who disagree. Even those who disagree fundamentally with the ideas of capitalism and objectivism, one should give them some level of social respect, failing to do so is proof of ones lack of intellectual capability. However, this does not mean you have to respect their ideas, feel free to slaughter communists on a debate floor, their ideas are generally trash and easy to rout anyways, but that is no reason to disrespect the fact, that at one time, that thing you are intellectually destroying was a fully functioning human being, perhaps not now, but at one time it was, and it is not acceptable to disrespect the dead, walking or not.

A couple points that I would like to make before I leave you to the headaches I may have developed.

First, the theme that science and god are at war is a total contradiction. If god created the universe, then science’s only capable function is to observe God’s creation. Thus unable to disprove (or as we have seen, prove) God’s existence. With this, God would logically be one with the universe, so there is no reason why he would be unable to interact with it (assuming he’s aware of both its existence, and an ability to influence directly). One could also say that god’s interaction is found in chance, the mathematics of probability and statistics leave a lot of room for god. Both are more sound then most sciences and most defiantly leave “room” for god; allowing for “luck” to be synonymous with god and/or god’s will.

The argument that science would disprove the “need” of god is based on completely wrong premises. Particularly the idea that people’s faith is like a drug, or that god explains the things that science has yet to explain. For the first premise, read above about disrespect, not saying that such people don’t exist, but I consider myself, proven myself, and will continue to prove myself a rational being, so please don’t lump all believers into such a category. Just as I don’t lump all atheist into the same group running holy crusades against Christianity, I expect the same respect. The fact is that the existence of God is not “convenient” for the things that science has yet to account for. Rather it’s convenient (I suppose that’s an appropriate enough word, particularly for atheists.) for the things that science CANNOT account for, namely the question: “Why is there something instead of nothing.”

But most importantly, I think, both for personal reasons and the overall futility of the debate, that a much more entertaining subject would be the nature of god. I am very please to see this hit upon, kudos to all those who attacked this much broader subject. But I would like to leave you with this final point; I have kept my specific dogma out of this as much as possible, so allow me to interject something from my personal beliefs. In my mind, the gift bestowed upon man by god, and which is the very nature of the soul, is the capability of rational thought. Now what I hope you all, no matter personal views, can appreciate the delicious humor involved in this statement. God creating a being, that is capable of, and indeed does such enthusiastically, rationally argue the non-existence of God. If I was in God’s position, I believe that thought alone would entertain me for an eon or two.

With all that being said, I’m first and foremost most apologetic for the length of this reply, I am not replying to a single post, but in fact the majority of the entire discussion. Plus I am very much known for being long winded. Also from the other posts I read, I will indeed thoroughly enjoy attacking and destroying certain premises, all for my own evil selfish delight. With this in mind, I’m just personally curious, should I even bother filling out an application, you now knowing that I truly intend on testing and destroying your assumptions, and premises with all my capabilities? Either way, if I’m allowed, I would like to present ideas to this forum in the future, I think they will be delightful debates.

I thank you for your time.

Shoftiel

PS: due to the length of my replys, in the furture I may just post a download to a word document...if this forum allows me to upload such things.

Also from the other posts I read, I will indeed thoroughly enjoy attacking and destroying certain premises, all for my own evil selfish delight. With this in mind, I’m just personally curious, should I even bother filling out an application, you now knowing that I truly intend on testing and destroying your assumptions, and premises with all my capabilities?

If this post demonstrates the extent of your ability to "destroy my premises," then I believe it's safe to say I don't feel threatened enough by your powers of rhetoric to deny your app based on that alone. However, it's entirely possible that I might reject your app as a self-defense mechanism to avoid having to see TLDR replies like this again in the future. All you've done is re-hash all the popular theist arguments in a stupendously overly wordy fashion. "Our puny human minds cannot begin to comprehend something as awesome as what I imagine god to be, you can't PROVE god doesn't exist, so that gives him a chance of existing, how can there be something instead of nothing if god didn't create it."

I've heard them before. I've been involved in these debates since before I could drive, and I've been on both sides of them. I'll say this; brevity is a virtue. Making your replies 3x as long as needed to say the same thing that has been said before is just going to annoy people (which, in case you haven't noticed, you've managed to do with me).

So long as your beliefs - particularly those regarding individual rights - are oist compatible you have a chance of getting in, and religious beliefs won't be an automatic rejection. We've had theists join us in the past, and I imagine we'll have more in the future. One thing we do agree on is that science can't "disprove" god. Just like science can't disprove magical teapots orbiting the sun.

As for brevity, I have already apologized for such. But I figured a society based on a 60 page monologue could survive reading through something less then 10% of that. I’m working on it though, it’s a skill, as mentioned before, that I haven’t had much practice.

As for bringing up an old argument, perhaps, but you are generalizing it, not answering it, I believe what you are referring to is my separate comments of: I personally cant conceive in my puny little head what a being of truly infinite intelligence would be. I’m not saying no human can, but I personally can not at this point in time. The second one, which you are avoiding the point, science, in its nature, cannot account for why there is something instead of nothing. When asked a specific line of questions, science ends up saying either “I don’t know” or “it just is,” or the argument becomes circular. As for a magic teapot orbiting the sun, science may indeed one day be able to prove there is such a teapot. Perhaps it already has….the planet earth already has all the material for making tea.

Maybe I’m dragging up old arguments, but as stated earlier, they are not someone else’s but my own, as such, if there is a total folly in them as you suggest, please describe the mistakes, rather then the fact that you don’t believe in a god. I have no doubt you have been arguing this for longer then I have, so please share you wisdom.

I thank you.

Shoftiel

You had me at….

Shoftiel wrote:I believe in the existence of such a being more so then I have faith that my truck will start when I try to go to work in the morning…

If my car has started on 99 previous occasions I have a 99% confidence (with a 95% reliability) that the car will start on the 100th occasion. Can we make a similar claim for the Billy the Deity?

Sans a test and actual data how do you get to a greater belief in GOD than an actual event that can be observed in RL?

I fear that may have added confusion with that. I'm not attempting to propose a logical proof for the existance of god, but rather to show a logical proof for the posible existance of god. As for the reasons i believe, I was just atempting to advised the people i would be debating of my views, and I wanted to see how many "churchy" coments come up.

Allow me to clarify. I do not wish to convert anyone here to theism, however, i do wish for people to understand and accept the posible existance of such a being, and how this is doable without sacraficing ones functioning logic. Just as i accept the posibility that such a being does not exist, there has been too many making the choice because of little more then "i wanna" rather then through rational thought. As i said, this is a difficult subject to debate logically, too many egos get enflamed, but that does not mean it's imposible.

If you were also attacking the reasons why i believe, like stated, taking a stance on either side of this particular issue is an act of faith. The reasons for belief or disbelief are each individual's, and for ethe most part cannot be shared in a such a setting.

Also just figured you guys should know that my truck did indeed fail to start this morning....got it an oil change and now it's working just fine, that previous statement is now out of date.

I thank you

Shoftiel

PS: sorry for any bad spelling or grammar, i'm writing this on the fly.

Edit: i fail at post script.....

Well, let's once again break the question of theism down to several questions.

1: Does a being of advanced power exist?
2: Is the said being perfect?
3: Did said being create anything regarding our reality?
4: If yes, did said being create reality itself?
5: Does said being interact with its creation?
6: Does said being reside within the same universe as its creation?

There are others, but this is a good opening cross-section of the different assumptions that are lumped together into single claims in the "God is real/God doesn't exist" arguments out there.

1: Does a being of advanced power exist?

There is no proof one way or the other on this one; in this case, Fermi's Paradox applies.

Mathematically, the universe stretches out into an infinite space. Given the astronomical (heh) number of planets, solar systems, and other celestial phenomena, and given that we exist in one of those celestial bodies, it is entirely possible for other races to exist elsewhere as well. However, as Enrico Fermi put it, if there are so many different forms of intelligent life out there, then where are they?

The same applies to the advanced beings that many cultures around the world refer to as gods. They may exist, but so far, there's little evidence of their interaction with people who do not actually worship them, thereby providing a neutral, third-party account of a real being.

This is not to say that the beings we refer to as god(s) don't exist, but thus far, they are unobserved. It almost makes me wonder if there are beings existing within a quantum half-state out there, affecting reality through quantum phenomena. It's pretty out-there, but no more so than most religions go.

2: Is the said being perfect?

Perfection is a judgment call, a decision based on the values of the observer, and not on any objective criteria. As we all have different values, there is no way a being can be perfect to all of us... unless we're talking about the above quantum being.

3: Did said being create anything regarding our reality?
4: If yes, did said being create reality itself?

It is a known fact that all things tend toward entropy; part of any energy production will be lost during its use. This is not just limited to human creations; even in nature, not all produced energy is used with 100% efficiency. This means that eventually, the universe will end when all energy is lost to entropy, and is in an unusable state. This is what is known as the "Heat Death" of the universe.

Even as a universe can have an ending, it also has a beginning; if there was no beginning, then it would be because there's infinite energy in the universe, which would invalidate entropy as no matter how much energy is lost, there would always be more. Basic thermodynamics pretty much invalidates that, so, therefore, the universe began, and the universe will end.

So, who created the known universe? This is the question that can support the existence of another being that initiated the action from which the universe came to be, whether it was "let there be light," or setting the equivalent of a cherry bomb in some empty 4-dimensional container. Of course, once again, if entropy occurs in our universe, it would have to occur in the source as well, or else the source would have imbued our universe with the same infinite source of energy.

Once again, however, quantum man may not follow the same rules, and so may be powerful enough to create matter and energy from something even more strange.

5: Does said being interact with its creation?
6: Does said being reside within the same universe as its creation?

Here's an exercise for you. Put some dirt at the bottom of a clear, small glass. Fill the glass with water. Let the glass set so the dirt settles at the bottom, and then sprinkle a few flakes of pepper on the top. Now, using your finger, try to remove all the pepper flakes without disturbing the dirt at the bottom.

What you will notice is that the pepper will ride the water to get away from your finger, preventing you from actually getting at it easily. The more you try, however, the more likely you will disturb the dirt at the bottom, causing it to mix with the water.

Any action taken by an external force into a system will cause other events to occur in the system that can disturb what is. For the most part, acts of a "higher power" have not had the kind of disruptive effect on reality that we might have on the water or dirt in that glass just to get at those flakes. This makes the existence of an external, immense being unlikely, as their interference with our reality would have huge, obvious effects to our perception, pretty much rendering any possible question of god's existence moot.

The less-obvious being who exists within our reality, on the other hand, would not have had much to do with the creation of our reality, rendering their existence as a creator superbeing as less likely.

Altogether, it renders the likelihood of a all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect god as extremely unlikely, but the odds do increase as you remove claims from the overall god question that the being referred to as god exists, and may even have some power we as humans lack.

As for brevity, I have already apologized for such.

Apologizing for committing a crime doesn't absolve you for it. I could forgive or overlook a long post if the points to paragraph ratio was good. But skimming your original post trying to find the actual points mixed in with the unnecessary explanations, demands for respect, preemptive self-defensiveness, and general rambling was a painful process.

Your arguments are the oldest and tiredest in the theist's arsenal, the infamous god of the gaps argument. Back in the days when the theory of evolution was a work in progress, creationists used the gaps argument as their first and only defense against the theory. Every year, the gaps got smaller, and their argument got weaker and weaker.

Further back, some believed that illnesses caused by things like bacteria and viruses were caused by evil spirits. Then microscopes were discovered... and bacteria could be observed. So, of course, it became viruses that got all the blame of evil spirits until the electron microscope was discovered... the gaps got smaller.

The point being, using God as an explanation for the unknown is the ultimate cop-out. If you go back just a hundred years, look at the understanding they had of the world compared with what we have now. Our knowledge and understanding has grown almost beyond imagination in such a short time. With computers as advanced as they are now, what gaps will be left in the next 100 years? The next 1000? 10000? Since time immemorial, those afraid to ask questions and seek answers used God as an explanation - and the real thinkers left them in the dust.

taking a stance on either side of this particular issue is an act of faith

No. I'll willingly admit you can't disprove god - it's quite literally impossible. Just like you can't disprove leprechauns, and republicans that are actual fiscal conservatives. Wasting your time debating the existence of leprechauns is an exercise in futility - why would you even bother? There is no evidence for their existence, aside from perhaps some old fairy tales... unless you can come up with some hard evidence, there's no reason to have the debate. It is not our job to disprove god - it's your job to prove his existence. The burden of proof is not ours to bear. Coming back to what I quoted - it's a matter of faith when you put belief in something with no logical basis. You - or anyone else - have never presented anything to change this. You don't have evidence or relevant arguments, you have the god of gaps.

Shoftiel wrote:As for brevity, I have already apologized for such. But I figured a society based on a 60 page monologue could survive reading through something less then 10% of that.

I will not tolerate hidden insults to our entire group, and and implying that your pages of gibberish are as readable as Atlas Shrugged.

Until another director/moderator convinces me, I'm going to revoke your posting privilages.

Your just being silly, everyone knows spaceweasels are real. (I hit one last night with my Tristan)

If your going to post such jibberish please do it here
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.as ... nelID=3519

or better yet, here
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.as ... nelID=3521



*what the hell did ccp do, website, forums and game are all slow as crap tonight*

Kushan wrote:I'll willingly admit you can't disprove god - it's quite literally impossible...There is no evidence for their existence, aside from perhaps some old fairy tales...

There are two ways to know something: empirically and rationally. Empirical knowledge requires an evaluation of evidence, and no "perfect" proof this way can ever be possible, as been already discussed, though it is very useful. Rational proofs are perfect though, because they are based on logical processes rather than evaluation of evidence. The rational method is what I described in my initial post, and it makes god as disprovable as a mattress with the color of emotion or a bird that's all black and all green at the same time. The very idea is nothing more than words which can be spoken with correct grammar but which hold no cognizable meaning.

This simple fact undermines every theist argument which, like some here, may appear to be logically constructed, but in fact have a basis which is literally absurd. We can write volumes about what my hypothetical pet bird which is all black and all green might eat, how long it might live, etc., that does not change the fact that it cannot exist.

MidasMulligan wrote:We can write volumes about what my hypothetical pet bird which is all black and all green might eat, how long it might live, etc., that does not change the fact that it cannot exist.

Doesn’t the whole impossibility approach place a sort of artificial limit on the situation? By that I mean something is impossible - until its not. This approach seems like the opposite side of the same coin in the God of Gaps argument.

I’ve not observed any fact pointing to the existence of GOD, but I can’t state with 100% certainty that in the future no hard evidence will materialize. Today the probability is astronomically minute, but not complete.

It's not artificial to point out that an argument or idea is absurd. How can a discussion continue from such an impasse? Some things are impossible- and stay that way forever. What kind of evidence could there be of a rock that's older than itself, or a person that can smell time?

I can claim there's a teapot orbiting Mars so small no telescope can see it, and you could never prove me wrong 100%, but you still wouldn't believe it, and that's a statement of something that is actually possible- just extremely unlikely. There's always the possibility that empirical evidence could surface. But what if I went on to say that the teapot is also not a teapot, but also is a teapot? No evidence of that could ever surface; not without twisting that statement to mean something different than what I obviously mean here.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html

Great quote on arbitrary by Leonard Peikoff:

“Arbitrary” means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. [An arbitrary idea is] a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality.

If a man asserts such an idea, whether he does so by error or ignorance or corruption, his idea is thereby epistemologically invalidated. It has no relation to reality or to human cognition.

Remember that man’s consciousness is not automatic, and not automatically correct. So if man is to be able to claim any proposition as true, or even as possible, he must follow definite epistemological rules, rules designed to guide his mental processes and keep his conclusions in correspondence to reality. In sum, if man is to achieve knowledge, he must adhere to objective validating methods—i.e., he must shun the arbitrary . . . .

Since an arbitrary statement has no connection to man’s means of knowledge or his grasp of reality, cognitively speaking such a statement must be treated as though nothing had been said.

Let me elaborate this point. An arbitrary claim has no cognitive status whatever. According to Objectivism, such a claim is not to be regarded as true or as false. If it is arbitrary, it is entitled to no epistemological assessment at all; it is simply to be dismissed as though it hadn’t come up . . . . The truth is established by reference to a body of evidence and within a context; the false is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence. The arbitrary, however, has no relation to evidence, facts, or context. It is the human equivalent of [noises produced by] a parrot . . . sounds without any tie to reality, without content or significance.

Also from the same link the following good part:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html
Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism”

It is not your responsibility to refute someone’s arbitrary assertion—to try to find or imagine arguments that will show that his assertion is false. It is a fundamental error on your part even to try to do this. The rational procedure in regard to an arbitrary assertion is to dismiss it out of hand, merely identifying it as arbitrary, and as such inadmissible and undiscussable.

MidasMulligan wrote:But what if I went on to say that the teapot is also not a teapot, but also is a teapot? No evidence of that could ever surface; not without twisting that statement to mean something different than what I obviously mean here.

The existence of contradiction like this in the Universe might seem impossible, and most likely we’d be hard pressed to identify a circumstance where the statement could be demonstrated to be true. Maybe that one never does come true, but that does not rule out the possibility of contradictions.

What if I rephrased your statement…

• An electron behaves like matter, an electron does not behave like matter.

This is a true contradiction that exists in our universe. I don’t know about GOD, but the electron contradiction is well studied and supported by evidence. So ruling out based on contradiction alone doesn’t seem like a complete option to me.

musashi wrote:This is a true contradiction that exists in our universe. I don’t know about GOD, but the electron contradiction is well studied and supported by evidence. So ruling out based on contradiction alone doesn’t seem like a complete option to me.

Bunch of bull. A is A. If A isn't A, nothing works at all. No statement is possible. And QM is wrong when it claims that A is A and non-A at the same time.

Oleksandr wrote:

musashi wrote:This is a true contradiction that exists in our universe. I don’t know about GOD, but the electron contradiction is well studied and supported by evidence. So ruling out based on contradiction alone doesn’t seem like a complete option to me.

Bunch of bull. A is A. If A isn't A, nothing works at all. No statement is possible. And QM is wrong when it claims that A is A and non-A at the same time.

Right. Electrons behave in matter in some ways and circumstances, and not in others, not both at the same time.

Oleksandr wrote:Bunch of bull. A is A. If A isn't A, nothing works at all. No statement is possible. And QM is wrong when it claims that A is A and non-A at the same time.

MidasMulligan wrote:Right. Electrons behave in matter in some ways and circumstances, and not in others, not both at the same time.

I’ve not learned a single observable fact about GOD, but quantum mechanics… I’ve learned a thing or two. An electron has those properties (particle and wave) all at the same time. Perhaps you are considering the Heisenberg uncertainty principal where it postulated that we can not identify an electron’s spin & position at the same time. Or electron tunneling where an electron is in one space at one instant, and a different space in the next instance without existing in the space in-between (where did it go) .

Actually one of the key functions used in that science goes against the concise algebra of A is A. I’ve always struggled with Schrödinger’s Wave Equation used to calculate the shapes of electrons orbits *[phi]= [h]*[phi].

In the majority of cases I do agree that if there is a contradiction between two ideas, there is most likely one or more flawed assumptions behind one or both ideas. Eli Goldratt wrote a great novel exploring this concept, It’s Not Luck. I really enjoyed the book because it gave me new tools to deal with conflict and contradiction, beyond avoidance.

The biggest problem with God is the perversion of God by Organized religion using God to control people.

The universe is highly regulated, highly structured and thus it is not unfathomable that it was designed. To assume that same designer would create humans to be mindless slaves worshiping at X Church, and never thinking beyond the teachings of that Church else suffer eternal damnation... is insane.

I believe there is enough evidence to say that there is more to life then "your born, you live, then you die", however I am not so presumptuous as to assume that I have the answer as to what more there is with any certainty.

-

So what is God? Can somebody on a pro-God side provide a definition?

(A supreme being does not count, unless you explain what supreme means.)

Oleksandr wrote:(A supreme being does not count, unless you explain what supreme means.)

a supreme taco at taco bell has sour cream and is more expensive while a normal taco doesn't maybe its a being with sour cream thats more expensive?

p.s VOTE OBAMA 2012

p.s.s I really did write that vote obama thing..... NO NINJA EDITOR(s) WERE INVOLVED!

Oleksandr wrote:So what is God? Can somebody on a pro-God side provide a definition?

(A supreme being does not count, unless you explain what supreme means.)

No clue "what God" really is, guess you'll have to wait to die for an answer, assuming there is anything past death. If there isn't, your curiosity will not be satisfied, and it just won't matter anyhow.

I'll attempt a pro-god definition Oleksandr. First off, I've read the OP and all replies, so I feel I have a good handle on what I'm getting into here. Perhaps I am delusional

God, to a religious, is a force or being that exists within the framework of reality but at the same time is not held subject to reality's rules. -Me, 2009

Such beings, by tradition, can be bargained with, prayed to, sacrificed to, and/or deceived to accomplish feats that would not be possible through the normal rules of reality. I think you will find that all religions, and nearly all gods (supreme tacos notwithstanding) abide by these rules for "God."

A God cannot be disproved because he by definition violates the known laws of reality. (See virtually every argument made thus far in this forum).

Some things I've seen in these forums that I'd like to clear up:

The claim has been made here in the forums, (and not viciously shot down!), that Current Science is the tool by which we must define all things.

This premise violates Objectivism and pisses off scientists by giving current science a mystical importance. This is a very dangerous thing to do, because it ignores what science IS, and the very real and rational things science does for mankind.

The universe exists independently of our understanding of it. A is A, and the universe behaves in ways which can be directly and indirectly observed, but also has phenomena which go unobserved at the moment. Science, and the laws which humans have written for science, Do Not Govern the universe. They, instead, describe how the universe has been observed, and re-observed ad nauseum, to behave. Our laws may, and often are, found to be wrong over time, but that does not mean the universe is irrational.

An electron behaving as both a particle and a wave, being in a general area but not directly observable, etc. are not in fact contradictions at all. Atomic theory has been revised over and over again as new observations and evidence have been presented, and it would be foolish indeed to assume that our current understanding of subatomic particles precludes any new scientific laws governing them. A person runs a high risk of moral corruption when he believes that he knows all of the answers. A perfect understanding of the universe is what we strive for, but we are by no means there yet.

These laws are for purposes of greater understanding and scientific approximations only. Please do not diminish the importance of science by saying that something outside of current scientific law cannot exist. If mankind had accepted that current law was the only possible law, human progress would have crawled to a halt in the dark ages...oh wait, it did.

Back to the point! There likely exist creatures with access to power outside our understanding. There likely exist creatures with greater understanding of the universe than man. But, such creatures would be Gods only if they could violate the rules of the universe, which would require a perfect understanding of how the universe behaves.

So, Godhood requires two conditions then. Perfect understanding of ALL laws pertaining to every particle, wave, and speck of hydrogen in the universe, and the ability to violate those laws at will. A perfect understanding of a universe trending toward entropy and filled with self-willed beings? Good luck finding one of those.

Qin Mei, out.

-