Does God Exist?

@brandonsays,

It's fallacious to attack the source. How about addressing the argument instead?

@brandonsays,

brandonsays wrote:

The "Bronze age myth book" agrees with infinite future, so they at least got that right. As I already stated, the problem with an infinite past is not an impirical problem (so I would agree with you with regard to the "standard model"). But as I mentioned, it does have problems metaphysically. Care to address those?

Necessary inference based on empirical data has been more reliable than speculative metaphysics. I'll pass on that, thanks.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Yet the force of empirical data depends on interpretation and legitimacy outside of empiricism. Otherwise it is self-referrential, and useless.

1 Reply

@brandonsays,

Word salad. "interpretation and legitimacy" Do you understand the phrase "necessary inference"?

Which gap are you trying to slip your god into? Please specify in clear language so we can avoid wasting a lot of time here.

1 Reply

@FBM,

You are correct. It is also fallacious to use as a source something that you assume supports your view, but doesn't, really. The article is rather neutral which to me is surprising.

My objection to the Wiki article is largely based on experience with such articles, which can change hourly from one ideological perspective to another. It just so happens that the current article, which you selected is more supportive of my own perspective than your own; which....hey, it happens. But this should cause some concern when quoting from, or citing this particular source. It's not that the articles are necessarily bad, but unreliable, and Wiki has a track record of unreliability in that respect.

That notwithstanding, I give you this:

Under the heading MODERN PHILOSOPHY, 3rd paragraph:

"The Tristram Shandy paradox also illustrates the absurdity of an infinite past. Bertrand Russell asks us to imagine Tristram Shandy, an immortal man who writes his biography so slowly that for every day that he lives, it takes him a year to record that day. Suppose that Shandy had always existed. Since there is a one-to-one correspondence between the number of past days and the number of past years on an infinite past, one could reason that Shandy could write his entire autobiography.[11] From another perspective, Shandy would only get farther and farther behind, and given a past eternity, would be infinitely far behind.[12]."

Mathematics hardly discounts the absurdity here. It is metaphysical and in the realm of reason and logic, of which mathematics is a part. Cantor distinguished 2 infinites: the variable infinite distinguished by the sideways "8" sign. And "actual" infinites, those which we can conceive of apart from mathematical theory. Reality. One cannot traverse an actual infinite as one can theoretically without pain of absurdity.

Btw, I mentioned "Herbert's Hotel." I believe that should read "Hilbert's Hotel", as in theorist David Hilbert (also mentioned in the article), who contended: "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. " He believed that infinites had no basis in reality, only in abstracts, such as mathematics. Sadly, I can see nowhere in the article that contends with this assertion. But I agree with it. The article also mentions WL Craig's own contention that it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite; with which I also agree, but again, no alternative view is presented. Do you see the problem here?

1 Reply

@brandonsays,

Again, you're relying on speculative metaphysics to support your position rather than empirical data and necessary inference, which is what scientists build on.

Please substantiate your god hypothesis with evidence.

1 Reply

@FBM,

And again, the idea of empiricism depends on a basis outside of itself. Otherwise it becomes self-referential, and therefore self-refuting. That enpirical data are analyzed to form conclusions about the world we observe has a basis in metaphysical assumptions about that same world. Otherwise you're simply committed to what is now termed "scientism," and not to true empirical science. The empirical sciences are much more modest in what they can answer.

The question of God's existence lies largely outside the scope of empirical science; but I challenge you to demonstrate that it is therefore irrelevant to empirical science, or any other form of inquiry, which you appear to be proclaiming here. Demonstrate by science that empirical science is a legitimate field of inquiry, and I might be inclined to agree with you, but as it stands, I seriously doubt that you can demonstrate such, and my doubt is rather strong. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I fully accept empirical evidence; but it's warrant and validity are of a higher order.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

"You ought really to be doing something other than arguing for the non-existence of gods."

Like what pray tell?

Like arguing that a remake of Godzilla was a good idea.

1 Reply

@brandonsays,

Scientific empiricism is based on experience and necessary inference. You seem to conflate that with metaphysical speculation. If you make a claim that something exists, the burden is upon you to provide evidence for it. If you have nothing but your own ideas, then you're just speculating. At the heart of the scientific method are observation, hypothesizing and testing, not wishful thinking, which underlies religious thinking.

So. Got any evidence? Of course, not. That's why you're squirming around trying to make empirical evidence irrelevant. Because you don't have any. Yet scientists do support their claims with testable data. If you refute any of their claims, show some contrary data. If you have a claim of your own, present a set of testable data. Otherwise, you're just speculating and choosing the answer that you like best.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Even a little understanding of how religion was established by the old cultures would lead to the conclusion that gods were created by man. Even the biblical stories have their precedence in Egyptian and Mesopotamian history.

Actually, I agree with you here, ci.

ALL of the gods that humans have worshiped (that we know about) DO SEEM to be creations of humans...and we can even understand some of the motivation for why they created them.

But, I have to add that this is not truly evidence that there is no GOD...but merely that humans apparently have the need to create gods whether they exist or not.

And humans who feel that need...seem to do a piss poor job of creating the ones they create...just as people who suggest what a god has to be (such as Brandonsays here)...do a not especially good job of deciding what a god actually has to be.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I notice, by the way, that Brandonsays is actually telling us what a god MUST be in order to be a god...

...and then refers to the god with the pronoun "HE."

Shouldn't that more logically be "IT"...or is there something else about what a god must be that includes maleness?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Genesis states: God said 'let us make man in our image........in the image of God made He him, male and female made He them."

If God makes female and male in his image, then it would suggest that God has no gender. But if God is personal, which I believe makes logical sense, then something other than 'it' would be most approoriate. Pick one or the other, "he" or "she." It makes no difference.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Trying to take the "empirical high ground here?" You pointed out the fallacy of discounting an argument based on the source, yet you are doing the same here by attempting to create a circumstance of ad hominem by suggesting I don't understand what empiricism is here. I know precisely what it is. I still challenge you to support empiricism outside of itself. I fully believe it can (and must) be done, but such support lies in the area of maintaining metaphysical assumptions from reason's rules, as I continue to contend and as you continue to overlook. You are therefore in my view, if you continue to maintain this stance, committed to ideological scientism, rather than empiricism. There is a difference, you know. But I will of course, give you the benefit of a doubt.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Does it not occur to you that to state even "necessary inference" depends on rules outside of itself in order to avoid being self-referrential? I think that every scientist does or should understand this. Empirical science does not exist in a vacuum of it's own legitimacy, but depends on certain laws of reason that lie outside the pervue of what we call "empiricism." Otherwise, as I now state for the 3rd time, it is self-referenttial, and therefore, self-defeating. I do not believe that what we call the scientific method is self-defeating. I do not believe this because I recognize that it's warrant and validity lie outside itself in certain laws of reason. Namely, non-contradiction, identity and excluded middle. Without that rational basis, we could not do science. Please acknowledge the truth of this, and then we can move on. Otherwise, I suspect that we cannot have a rational discussion on these issues.

0 Replies

@brandonsays,

Please try to avoid straw man arguments and I promise to do the same. I never said that you didn't understand empiricism. Furthermore, if you'll promise to avoid red herrings, I'll match that promise.

The word that I used to justify my preference for empirical science over metaphysical speculation was "reliable." It is more reliable. I never said anything about believing that its findings are ultimately true. I haven't made a metaphysical truth claim; you have. Therefore, you need to substantiate that claim.

I can imagine the following conversation:

Judge: Son, the evidence against you is overwhelming. What do you have to say in your defense?

Defendant: Your honor, that evidence is based on empiricism, which is self-referential, negates itself and is therefore useless. Whatever I say has just as much correlation with reality as all that evidence combined.

Judge: I'm adding 5 years to your sentence just for trying that argument.

Anybody who on the one hand claims that empirical evidence is irrelevant but nevertheless depends on it to get through daily life is a hypocrite.

Edit: I am not attributing that to you, so it isn't a straw man, just an elucidation of my position.

1 Reply

@brandonsays,

brandonsays wrote:

...You are therefore in my view, if you continue to maintain this stance, committed to ideological scientism, rather than empiricism. There is a difference, you know. But I will of course, give you the benefit of a doubt.

Again, if I were making a metaphysical truth claim, this would be relevant. However, I'm not, so it's not.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM, with all due respect, you have not undertood my argument if you think I"m disparaging empiricism in any way. My argument is against your own contention that metaphysical arguments are merely speculative. I have contended, and will continue to contend that empiricism itself depends on metaphysical assumptions about the world and the universe. Assumptions that are not observable, but ni less rational and supportive. I therefore view any further discussion in this area as fruitless and pointless without some agreement as to what constitutes "empirical." Science works because more often than not the metaphysical assumptions in support of science also work. And those assumptions aren't merely speculative because they aren't empirical.

1 Reply

@brandonsays,

The definition of "empirical" isn't the issue. It's well defined. You and I both could google it, if we didn't already know. The issue is that you're claiming to know that there is a god, but you're not providing anything to substantiate that claim. Instead, your approach seems to be punching holes in scientific findings in order to create a space for your god of the gaps. Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Please show me where I have attempted to "punch holes" in anything scientific? My exercise is to punch holes in self-referential ideas about what empiricism is. That's all. Scientists are usually very modest about what they can show us empirically. You seem to imply that in order for God to exist, I should be able to demonstrate that empirically. I contend that whether God exists or not is beyond what empiricism can tell us. But empirical science CAN touch on evidence for God. I just perceive that whatever evidence that might be presented for God's existence is viewed through the lenses of our metaphysical commitments. You apparently are a committed materialist, who begs questions by a metaphysical perspective that what can be "known" is known only through empirical observation and inference. Based on this conversation, that's my impression. But I could be wrong, and/or pursuaded otherwise.

I believe that materialists have falsely assumed the "empirical high ground," so to speak when it comes to questions of science and particularly the scientific method.

I've heard the "god-of the -gaps" charge many times before, and it is usually set in place at a loss of being able to deal with the real basis for what we believe to be true; which isn't empiricism, btw. That's a discipline that does not come naturally to us as humans. Speculation and assumption come more naturally to us. But the person disciplined in science is less likely to make the "God-of-the gaps" charge if he or she is modest in what he or she can answer empirically.

So why not deal with the actual arguments? What holes can you puncture through the cosmological argument that I initially presented to this thread? You began, I believe, to address some of those issues, but then
somehow got sidetracked when you started questioning my understanding of "empirical."

1 Reply

@brandonsays,

brandonsays wrote:

Please show me where I have attempted to "punch holes" in anything scientific? My exercise is to punch holes in self-referential ideas about what empiricism is. That's all.

And the scientific method, which is based on empiricism, would thus fall into the category of what you're trying to punch holes in.

Quote:

Scientists are usually very modest about what they can show us empirically.

The careful ones are, yes. Some spin out of control a bit due to lack of philosophical rigor.

Quote:

You seem to imply that in order for God to exist, I should be able to demonstrate that empirically.

I doubt the existence of such a hypothetical being would depend on your ability to substantiate your claims.

Quote:

I contend that whether God exists or not is beyond what empiricism can tell us.

And this sounds very much like special pleading. You demand empirical evidence to navigate daily existence; why would you suspend the need for it in this matter?

Quote:

But empirical science CAN touch on evidence for God.

This is a bold claim that needs to be substantiated.

Quote:

I just perceive that whatever evidence that might be presented for God's existence is viewed through the lenses of our metaphysical commitments.

As is every other aspect of human experience. What makes the god hypothesis any different?

Quote:

You apparently are a committed materialist, who begs questions by a metaphysical perspective that what can be "known" is known only through empirical observation and inference. Based on this conversation, that's my impression. But I could be wrong, and/or pursuaded otherwise.

You can be forgiven for that assumption, since we've just met. I'm not a committed materialist or empiricist, nor do I cling to any other description or ideology.

Quote:

I believe that materialists have falsely assumed the "empirical high ground," so to speak when it comes to questions of science and particularly the scientific method.

If I were a materialist, I would reply that the phrase "empirical high ground" is fitting for a reason.

Quote:

I've heard the "god-of the -gaps" charge many times before, and it is usually set in place at a loss of being able to deal with the real basis for what we believe to be true; which isn't empiricism, btw.

Our experiences seem to vary. The "god-of-the-gaps" approach was pioneered, if memory serves, by creationists who sought to use the incompleteness of scientific knowledge as a foundation for inserting their god hypothesis as a causal factor. Which is an argument from ignorance.

Quote:

That's a discipline that does not come naturally to us as humans. Speculation and assumption come more naturally to us. But the person disciplined in science is less likely to make the "God-of-the gaps" charge if he or she is modest in what he or she can answer empirically.

Scientific claims are by nature tentative and approximate. That does not preclude any individual, scientifically literate person from recognizing a god-of-the-gaps approach to argumentation when it occurs.

Quote:

So why not deal with the actual arguments? What holes can you puncture through the cosmological argument that I initially presented to this thread? You began, I believe, to address some of those issues, but then
somehow got sidetracked when you started questioning my understanding of "empirical."

I briefly got sidetracked by your red herrings about the definition of empiricism, etc. Since then, I have been doggedly trying to bring the discussion back to the very topic, viz what evidence do you have to support your god hypothesis? If I harp on about metaphysical speculation, it's because that's what I consider your early contribution to be. Empiricism is not materialism.

0 Replies

Does God Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know