God//Jesus and Quantum Uncertainty

by SYN 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

funkyderek

The formatting is completely screwed up on my previous post. I'll come back to it if I figure out how to edit....
NeonMadman

How do you measure it? As you admit it's a completely subjective experience, how do you know it's not just indigestion?
I don't attempt to measure it or analyze it in any scientific way. Since I am open to the idea that there may be things that exist which are beyond the detection and grasp of human beings, that's not a problem for me. But keep reading, I'll come back to this in a minute... I'm not saying that the universe would contain mistakes if it were the product of intelligence but that it would contain evidence of creativity and unpredictability that are the hallmarks of intelligence.
Wow. It seems to me that what you're trying to do here is define the criteria in such a way as to reach the conclusion you want to reach.
How can you look at the universe and the natural world, and make a remark like that? You really don't see any evidence of creativity around you? What about the wide diversity of living things? Wouldn't you consider order and law the hallmarks of intelligence? Why should physical laws exist at all? Why should anything exist at all? There must have been a first cause. Yet it seems easier for you to believe that unintelligent forces somehow constructed the beautiful and diverse universe that we see around us, than to imagine that everything is ultimately the product of intelligence? I don't understand; it seems so obvious to me that there had to be some intelligent force behind it all.
Couple that with the fact that hundreds of millions of people throughout human history claimed to have had an experience with that very Intelligence, and I think you have to acknowledge that the possibility of God's existence is worth exploring. I have no faith; how would you suggest I get faith?
Sure you do. You have faith in science, which is predicated upon certain unproven assumptions about the way things are. You apparently have faith that nothing exists unless it can be quantified in a way that human beings can understand. You have faith in all sorts of things. If you want to get utterly philosophical, you have faith that the outside world even exists. Maybe it's all in your own mind. How do you know you're not in one of those pods in The Matrix, being fed phony information about what's happening around you? How do you know you live in a real world? That, in a nutshell, is my answer to your first question, "how do you know it's not just indigestion?" I know that God exists in much the same way that you know that a world exists outside your mind. Through a combination of reason, common sense, and faith, combined with utterly subjective experience.
NeonMadman

Hmmmmmmm...I see what you mean about the formatting, and the "edit" option seems to have gone bye-bye...
funkyderek

I don't attempt to measure it or analyze it in any scientific way. Since I am open to the idea that there may be things that exist which are beyond the detection and grasp of human beings, that's not a problem for me
I'm also open to that idea, but I can't assume the existence of something that is "beyond the detection and grasp of human beings" for reasons that should be obvious. I've asked this question before: What's the difference between something that has absolutely no measurable effects and something that doesn't exist? How can you look at the universe and the natural world, and make a remark like that? You really don't see any evidence of creativity around you? What about the wide diversity of living things? Wouldn't you consider order and law the hallmarks of intelligence? Why should physical laws exist at all? Why should anything exist at all? There must have been a first cause. Yet it seems easier for you to believe that unintelligent forces somehow constructed the beautiful and diverse universe that we see around us, than to imagine that everything is ultimately the product of intelligence? I don't understand; it seems so obvious to me that there had to be some intelligent force behind it all.
I think we've made a breakthrough here. You're arguing evidence and facts, observed reality, testable data. Make a claim that can be disproved and we can have a proper debate. You have faith in science, which is predicated upon certain unproven assumptions about the way things are.
The scientific beliefs I hold are ones which appear to accurately describe the universe and can potentially be disproved but haven't been. No faith is required.You apparently have faith that nothing exists unless it can be quantified in a way that human beings can understand.
No I don't. I just think that anything that can't be observed, tested, measured or explained is effectively non-existent. This is also not based on faith, but on reason and deduction. If you want to get utterly philosophical, you have faith that the outside world even exists. Maybe it's all in your own mind. How do you know you're not in one of those pods in The Matrix, being fed phony information about what's happening around you? How do you know you live in a real world?
There's a fundamental difference between this scenario and what we're discussing. There's no choice but to believe that this world is real. It may not be but it seems to be a perfect simulation of reality. We continue to test reality and it always behaves consistently even when we don't understand it. It would be ludicrous to behave as if we lived in anything other than a real world until we have evidence to suggest otherwise. Again, no faith is required.I know that God exists in much the same way that you know that a world exists outside your mind. Through a combination of reason, common sense, and faith, combined with utterly subjective experience. I don't see how. When I wake up in the morning, I see only one world. I have no choice but to believe in air and water. I have no choice but to believe that the sun rises every morning. I can postulate elaborate scenarios and entities who may exist outside my universe but have no discernible effect on it to "explain" it, but what would be the point? There's no real evidence to support it and there's no way to disprove it. You are the one who seems to believe in a phony world controlled by an all-powerful outside force. I do not. Subjective experience doesn't prove a thing.
NeonMadman

I'm also open to that idea, but I can't assume the existence of something that is "beyond the detection and grasp of human beings" for reasons that should be obvious. I've asked this question before: What's the difference between something that has absolutely no measurable effects and something that doesn't exist?
Good idea with the red coloring, until the "quotation" function starts working properly again.
There are very likely many things that exist, but which are not measurable from our position on earth. One example was the one I mentioned earlier in the thread, life existing on planets in other solar systems. We can't find it or measure it; that doesn't mean that it isn't there.
Let me turn the question around: assuming the existence of God, what sort of measurable effects would you expect to find? Is there any way in which He could manifest Himself that would prove to you that He exists, and is in fact God? And if such a manifestation were to you alone, how would you prove His existence to others who were not present?
The scientific beliefs I hold are ones which appear to accurately describe the universe and can potentially be disproved but haven't been. No faith is required.
Of course, belief in a flat earth at one time appeared to accurately describe the universe, and hadn't been disproved. Was that a scientific belief, or was it based on faith?
Science traces the origin of the universe to the "Big Bang", but if there are any serious theories as to what caused the Big Bang, I haven't heard them (other than the oscillating universe, of course, but that merely pushes back the question to where the oscillation comes from).
I'm inclined here to think of the way tobacco companies react when confronted with data that seems to demonstrate a link between their products and cancer, or other disease. Obviously, such findings are likely to hurt sales, so the first thing that the companies do is to try to come up with an alternative explanation of the data, one that does not implicate their product. Sometimes I think scientists are like that, in a way (not all, of course). The one thing they will not consider in investigating the universe is intelligent design. It's almost as if they had a vested interest in there not being a God. A rock shaped in the form of an arrowhead must have had an intelligent maker, but an entire universe of complexity, diversity, and containing at least some intelligent life, had none? Absurd!
Subjective experience doesn't prove a thing.
I wasn't aware that I was actually trying to prove anything. I admitted early on that the existence of God cannot be proven with apodictic certainty. What I have tried to demonstrate is that a reasonable case can be made that the universe is the product of intelligent design. I have also pointed out that hundreds of millions of persons have claimed to have had personal experience with the Designer thereof. Such testimony, I believe, bears significant weight. Those concepts, combined with my personal experience of God, convince me that He exists. I never said I could prove it to you.
funkyderek

There are very likely many things that exist, but which are not measurable from our position on earth. One example was the one I mentioned earlier in the thread, life existing on planets in other solar systems. We can't find it or measure it; that doesn't mean that it isn't there.
No, it doesn't mean it isn't there, but it does mean we can't assume it's there. We can use our knowledge and experience to figure out what life on other planets might look like and how to detect it, and how likely it is to exist. But without direct evidence, we can't say for certain.
Let me turn the question around: assuming the existence of God, what sort of measurable effects would you expect to find? Is there any way in which He could manifest Himself that would prove to you that He exists, and is in fact God? And if such a manifestation were to you alone, how would you prove His existence to others who were not present?
All God would have to do to gain my instant belief is to resurrect a decomposed corpse. That's it. I'd prefer it was done in front of other people so as to reduce the likelihood of me being fooled by a parlour trick. Parting the Red Sea would also convince me. If it was just to me alone, I may have to assume that I was going mad, as that would be the more likely scenario.
Of course, belief in a flat earth at one time appeared to accurately describe the universe, and hadn't been disproved. Was that a scientific belief, or was it based on faith?
It was based on the best available information. There was no faith needed. People observed the earth which appeared to be flat. It's only when science started to develop that people realised the earth was round, and proved it long before direct observation could confirm it.
Science traces the origin of the universe to the "Big Bang", but if there are any serious theories as to what caused the Big Bang, I haven't heard them (other than the oscillating universe, of course, but that merely pushes back the question to where the oscillation comes from).
So where does God come from? God is a much more complex entity than an oscillation. If something as simple as an oscillation is too much for you to accept as a first cause, how can you possibly accept that there was an infinitely complex intelligent entity which always existed? Surely God requires more explanation than a mere vibration?
What I have tried to demonstrate is that a reasonable case can be made that the universe is the product of intelligent design
I beg to differ. You've certainly asserted that, but you've given no evidence for that but your personal experience and the alleged experiences of the significant minority of humankind who share your belief system. Perhaps a reasonable case can be made, but you haven't made it.
Such testimony, I believe, bears significant weight. Those concepts, combined with my personal experience of God, convince me that He exists. I never said I could prove it to you.
Fair enough. Do you at least accept though, that from my point of view, your unverifiable subjective belief in God is exactly the same as someone else's unverifiable subjective belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH)?
NeonMadman

All God would have to do to gain my instant belief is to resurrect a decomposed corpse.

But if that happened, how would you be sure that it was God? Couldn't it be the act of some alien race with advanced technology? Or humans from the future, at a time when technology capable of doing such things has been developed (along with time travel, of course)? Or perhaps it's an illusion of some sort? Or a clone?
I think that as long as there was an alternate explanation of some sort that did not involve a spiritual aspect, you would tend to cling to that theory rather than accept the existence of God.
Parting the Red Sea would also convince me.
And, of course, there are written records made by persons claiming to be eyewitnesses, which assert that God has done both of these things. You have chosen not to accept their testimony as being credible.
So where does God come from?
Part of the definition of God is that He is eternal, always existing, or more to the point, existing outside of time (which is itself part of creation). Whether we accept the existence of God or not, we need to acknowledge that something has always existed. Otherwise we are left with the dilemma of explaining how matter and energy came to exist out of nothing. To me, it makes more sense to believe that something with intelligence and power caused things to start happening, than that unintelligent matter somehow decided to organize itself into a universe. You, of course, are free to accept the latter if you wish.
Do you at least accept though, that from my point of view, your unverifiable subjective belief in God is exactly the same as someone else's unverifiable subjective belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH)?
Not quite, no. The existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn (what does PBUH mean?) explains nothing in terms of the existing universe. God is set forth as being the cause of the universe, and without Him, no one has any idea what the cause might be. If there is no God, no intelligent first cause, then someone's got a lot of 'splainin' to do, Lucy.
Besides, there are all those people who claim to have experienced God. That can't be dismissed with a wave of the hand simply because the experiences are subjective. I would submit that any subjective phenomenon that was so widespread would be given credibility by science and analyzed for meaning - if it didn't involve a spiritual aspect. But modern science is determined to leave God out of the equation. Which goes right back to the original question. One of the reasons God cannot be defined in scientific terms is that science is constructed in such a way as to eliminate God (or any spiritual entity) from consideration. The terms of the debate are defined in such a way as to favor one conclusion over the other.
Undecided

A very interesting discussion, one which I am still undecided as to the actual truth of a God or no god.
As far as nature giving proof of anything, it just proves that if God did make it, he has a non caring attitude toward life. Everything dies, even the universe, a piece at a time. For something to live, something must die. Take the sun for an example, it's energy that keeps the earth alive is being used up and will eventually die. All living things eats other living things to remain alive. Since we are now on the top of the food chain(if we disreguard parasites, bacteria, and viruses) does that mean we are a chosen group of this God? If we get life after this one in some spiritual world, why bother with a physical world to get us there? What is the real purpose of life??? Is God just having a little recreation to his enjoyment, since nothing is important except for his pleasure?
This faith that is so important to him should be explained a little better, so that it wouldn't be so confusing to most of mankind.
Ken P.
funkyderek

But if that happened, how would you be sure that it was God? Couldn't it be the act of some alien race with advanced technology? Or humans from the future, at a time when technology capable of doing such things has been developed (along with time travel, of course)? Or perhaps it's an illusion of some sort? Or a clone?

It could possibly be any of those things, although I specified a decomposed corpse so that only something supernatural (or something far beyond anything we know about science) could do it. Such an entity would be the functional equivalent of a god.
I think that as long as there was an alternate explanation of some sort that did not involve a spiritual aspect, you would tend to cling to that theory rather than accept the existence of God.
Correct. It's a method that has led to huge advancements in science and technology.. When we realise that the world behaves in certain ways for certain reasons and not at the whim of some creator we stop doing rain dances and start making accurate weather forecasts (for example).
In the case of restoring a decomposed corpse to life with full personality and memory of the deceased, I think I would be inclined to believe in a supernatural explanation, as everything we know about the mind tells us that it exists as a function of the brain. Only the right combinations of connections between the right pattern of neurons would produce the same personality and memory. It seems unlikely that science could ever do that without knowing what those patterns were in the first place.
And, of course, there are written records made by persons claiming to be eyewitnesses, which assert that God has done both of these things. You have chosen not to accept their testimony as being credible.
No, I am compelled by the nature of the testimony to find it incredible. The oldest records of such writings date from centuries after the alleged events. There is neither supporting evidence nor corroborating accounts. I disbelieve them for the same reason you don't believe miraculous accounts in the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita.
Part of the definition of God is that He is eternal, always existing, or more to the point, existing outside of time (which is itself part of creation). Whether we accept the existence of God or not, we need to acknowledge that something has always existed. Otherwise we are left with the dilemma of explaining how matter and energy came to exist out of nothing. To me, it makes more sense to believe that something with intelligence and power caused things to start happening, than that unintelligent matter somehow decided to organize itself into a universe. You, of course, are free to accept the latter if you wish.
But don't you see that your first cause requires more explanation than my first cause? If you are unable to believe that intelligence can arise from nothing, how can you believe that the most complex intelligent being imaginable was simply always there? Either intelligence needs a creator or it doesn't. Which is it?
(what does PBUH mean?)
"Praise Be Unto Her" of course. (It's kind of an atheist geek joke).
God is set forth as being the cause of the universe, and without Him, no one has any idea what the cause might be. If there is no God, no intelligent first cause, then someone's got a lot of 'splainin' to do, Lucy.
As far as I can tell, you're asserting that intelligence cannot develop by itself and the only possible explanation for its existence is another infinitely more complex pre-existing intelligence which you have decided needs no explaining. Do you see why I have a problem with that.
Human intelligence is too complex to have arisen from a non-intelligent source but God's intelligence just simply exists. If intelligence predates the universe as you suggest, then how can you believe that intelligence cannot arise within the universe? It seems that you're just picking and choosing what you believe to be possible in order to support your subjective belief in a god.
Besides, there are all those people who claim to have experienced God. That can't be dismissed with a wave of the hand simply because the experiences are subjective. I would submit that any subjective phenomenon that was so widespread would be given credibility by science and analyzed for meaning - if it didn't involve a spiritual aspect.
It can be dismissed, precisely because the experiences are wholly subjective, and show no correlation with observed reality. Should equal credibility be given to all subjective experiences or just the ones you believe in?
But modern science is determined to leave God out of the equation.
The equations don't need a god. They work just as well without one.
Which goes right back to the original question. One of the reasons God cannot be defined in scientific terms is that science is constructed in such a way as to eliminate God (or any spiritual entity) from consideration. The terms of the debate are defined in such a way as to favor one conclusion over the other.
That's not quite true. If God had any observable effects, then he's be part of science. Everything used to be attributed to gods. Lightning was God getting angry, God made the sun rise and set and made plants grow, or made people sick. Now we know better. If our ancestors had just accepted that God was the cause of everything, then we'd still be living in caves (if our species had survived). If God's effects could actually be tested for, then they would be. Your subjective God, who hasn't done anything objective in 2000 years is untestable. It's not science that's "constructed in such a way as to eliminate God", it's your god who's constructed in a way that makes him untestable to science.
NeonMadman

It could possibly be any of those things, although I specified a decomposed corpse so that only something supernatural (or something far beyond anything we know about science) could do it. Such an entity would be the functional equivalent of a god.

Wasn't it Arthur C. Clarke who said that 'any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic' (Or maybe it was Theodore Sturgeon, I forget)? To medieval knights, a match or a rifle would seem magical, even though they are common items today. Should science continue to advance for several hunderd more years, its effects might well seem supernatural to us. Who knows whether methods of determining prior neural connections via quantum effects (or some other effects of which we have no idea yet) might be developed? There could always be an alternate explanation. Look at Immanuel Velikovsky's explanations of Biblical events; you said that parting the Red Sea would convince you, but Velikovsky postulates naturalistic causes for that event. I realize, of course, that his physics are wacky (the man didn't know the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates!). But it is an alternate theory that doesn't involve the supernatural. Which seems more improbable to you, Velikovsky's ideas of planets flying around the solar system like billiard balls causing the parting of the Red Sea, or the Hand of God?
Anyway, my point is that there can always be an alternate theory as to what causes a miracle. The person who is not inclined to accept the possibility of miracles will generally accept the other explanation. That, really, is why I asked you in the first place what sort of proof you would accept - because, ultimately, I didn't think there would be any that would work for you.
The oldest records of such writings date from centuries after the alleged events.
Not exactly true. There are fragments of New Testament manuscripts dating within decades of the events they record, and the writers of those documents claimed to be eyewitnesses to the events in question, not the least of which was the resurrection of Jesus Christ (and other resurrections performed by Him and His followers). Could they have been lying? I guess it's possible, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me that they would have been willing to go to their deaths as martyrs for something they knew to be a fraud.
"Praise Be Unto Her" of course. (It's kind of an atheist geek joke).
So do a lot of atheists worship this Invisible Pink Unicorn? Is it a cult thing? Will an atheist be knocking on my door soon to offer me pamphlets about her?
Human intelligence is too complex to have arisen from a non-intelligent source but God's intelligence just simply exists. If intelligence predates the universe as you suggest, then how can you believe that intelligence cannot arise within the universe?
I don't really think it's necessarily true that it couldn't arise, just that there would be no reason for it to do so, or for anything else to happen, for that matter. It goes back to the three options that I set out way back when. Inanimate matter does not have a will with which to decide to start organizing itself into things like universes and Volvos. So what reason would there be for it to do so? An intelligent designer does have such a will, and can make things because He wants to.
It can be dismissed, precisely because the experiences are wholly subjective, and show no correlation with observed reality. Should equal credibility be given to all subjective experiences or just the ones you believe in?
There are whole branches of science based largely upon subjective experience: sociology and psychology come right to mind. No one claims that the results of surveys and studies in these fields are unscientific or lack validity simply because they are subjective. For example, no one dismisses the social problems of inner city dwellers as not being valid because they are subjective, based largely upon what people report about their feelings and concerns. Any subjective experience that is widespread will be studied and analyzed - unless, of course, it is spiritual in nature.
It's not science that's "constructed in such a way as to eliminate God", it's your god who's constructed in a way that makes him untestable to science.
Because science sets the criteria for reality as being what can be verified through physical experimentation. And round and round we go.
We seem to be writing the same things over and over, with slightly different wording for each instance. Think it's time we agreed to disagree?

God//Jesus and Quantum Uncertainty

Share this