Dear LEGO,

<<Yuyutsu, if a God created the universe, what was he (she?) doing before the universe existed?>>

God is not a creator, but if it helps you to think of Him as such, if it enhances your devotion, then do so. Historically, many people's lives were uplifted by that notion, however, if it doesn't help you, if the idea of creation doesn't suit you personally, if it doesn't forward your spiritual progress - then don't! then for God's sake please forget about it and don't pursue such futile ideas.

.

Dear George,

.

« … phenomena that a theist sees as miracles or divine acts, are naturally amenable to scientific investigation ... but one possibility is certainly to dismiss them as fruits of the imagination.”
.

Thank you for explaining that by “divine acts” you mean “miracles”. I did not know that all “divine acts” were considered to be “miracles”. I’m afraid I ‘m a neophyte in such matters.

What I meant to say was that if God (any God) exists, then I see no reason why science should not be able to provide conclusive evidence of (his, her, or its) existence, sooner or later.

I added that, if, on the other hand, as I understand it, God is simply the fruit of the imagination, then science should also eventually be able to gain access to human imagination and demonstrate that fact conclusively as well.

These were the two ideas I wished to submit to you as a scientist in order to have your carefully considered opinion.

I hope I have made it clear that I do not consider that, as you surmise, “ reality that science has access to is all reality that there is”. I see “reality that science has access to” as evolutive and eminently extensible, as I imagine you do too.

I would nevertheless like to have your confirmation on this point and am interested to know if you think God, real or imagined, is beyond the reach of science or not.

.

To Yuyutsu

Both you and George Virsik have now posted articles directed at me which are completely amorphous in the logic. Both your premise's appears to be, that God can not be defined. Both of you want to tell me what God isn't, but you can't tell me what he (she?) is.

That is like saying that ghosts, unicorns, fairies, Santa Claus, and flying saucers exist because they can't be defined.

Sorry, I gave up on that sort of thinking when I was 15 years old, when I realised that all of this supernatural BS was some sort of collective hallucination by a large number of people who really do want to think that it is possible to live forever.

I can still remember sitting in my religious instruction class at school while some old fool talked about the Holy Trinity.

Like, 3 times 1 is 1.

1 times three is 1.

And 1, plus 1, plus 1, is 1.

Yeah, that figures.

If you believe that, you can believe in anything.

Jon J,
Your first post made me think.This one didi not; it only testifies that you have not read the article, only its heading and perhaps the first paragraph. Otherwise you would have noticed the number of explicit denials of any apologetic aims: one is not apologetic if one tries to analyse worldviews that do not agree with yours; see also my responses to AJ Philips.

Also it is up to Graham and not you or me to decide which article is worth publishing to be read by a handful or not of people. Anyhow, I presume only Graham knows how many people click on an article he decided to publish.

Hi Antiseptic,

I have to admit I don’t know much about the philosophy of empiricism, so I misunderstood your reference to “things empirically definable”. However, a little of googling brought me to its meaning that I would express as “empirically detectable” which explicitly involves the observer who does the detection.

If applied to the concept of God, being empirically definable/detectable would mean there being an event or situation that would turn an atheist into a theist or so. Thus formulated it is obviously subjective: there have been such events or (personal) situations that turned this or that unbeliever into a believer (and vice versa). If asked for an event or situation that is UNIVERSALLY detectable, i.e. that would turn ALL (or most all) atheists into theists that is obviously not the case. I actually could not even imagine such a situation.

So in this sense I am with you on “How could anybody take the idea that some things are not empirically definable?”. Belief that God - in whatever cultural representation - exists is barren without the accompanying faith (a state of mind) which it is only one feature of.

I presume, by adductive you meant abductive (processes). I am not sure I understand the processes part, however I know something about abductive reasoning. So I would be grateful if you could explain in what sense it “leaves room for God”.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for your feedback. I indee appreciate it.

I did not speak of “all” miracles or divine acts as such (whatever that would be) only of events or phenomena that this or that believer in God sees as a miracle: Obviously, this depends on the believer. For instance, many more phenomena were considered miraculous, as God’s direct intervention, by medieval believers than by educated believers today. So, perhaps I should have written “what a theist sees as miracle or God’s direct intervention” since in the poetic sense, for instance every newborn baby can be seen as a “miracle”.

>> if God … exists, then I see no reason why science should not be able to provide conclusive evidence of (his, her, or its) existence<<

Well if science could “provide conclusive evidence of” God, then God would become a cluster of phenomena investigated by science, hence different from a post-Enlightenment (Christian at least) understanding of God. In the article I devoted a whole paragraph to the case when what some believer would see as God’s direct intervention would be recorded by scientific instruments as violation of natural laws, dismissing it as something that would become incorporated in science.

Perhaps your question refers just to God’s detectability that I wrote about in the previous post to Antiseptic. If by “conclusive evidence provided by science” you mean what I called universal detectability, then, as I wrote, I do not believe it can exist: I cannot even imagine, how it could exist. As individual detectability, “experience of God” does exist as witnessed by many conversions. (ctd)

Dear LEGO,

<<Both you and George Virsik have now posted articles directed at me which are completely amorphous in the logic.>>

Let me assure you that George and I are not coordinated.

<<Both your premise's appears to be, that God can not be defined.>>

I don't recall claiming that in this particular thread, but yes, this is my view.

<<Both of you want to tell me what God isn't,>>

As far as I'm concerned (I cannot speak for George), for a good reason: mis-concepts such as "God is a creator" have created havoc and ongoing damage: it has subjected religion, especially since the advent of modern-science, to shame and ridicule and placed religious people at risk of persecution (as we are reminded from time-to-time by certain OLO users who would be delighted to throw all religious people in a boiling pot).

<<but you can't tell me what he (she?) is.>>

Not only can't: even if I could, I would have no interest or inclination to do so.

<<That is like saying that ghosts, unicorns, fairies, Santa Claus, and flying saucers exist because they can't be defined.>>

I have stated not once (on other threads) that God does not exist, hence it's an invalid comparison.

<<If you believe that, you can believe in anything.>>

Doesn't it indicate an open mind?

As an example, you have a personal problem - perhaps overweight or a drinking issue, which you want to address, so you see a hypnotherapist, who sits you on a couch and says: "As I count down you will feel more-and-more tired and relaxed...10...9...8... you are now floating on a pink cloud..."

If you hold tight onto the idea that one cannot possibly sit on a pink cloud, you will not be hypnotised and your problem will not be solved, so are you really better off sticking to objective facts?

Viewing God as creator, for example, is a religious technique/practice that seemed to uplift many generations of the Abrahamic faith. If so, then why argue with success? For you, a modern-science-fan, this technique is probably useless, so why bother further?