Pondering 'God'

[psychoanaleesis]

I've been chewing on this idea for quite a bit and I've just found my stand on the matter of 'God' existing as a fact. Not surprisingly, the conclusion is: No. God does not exist since the concept of God is based on a supernatural entity belonging to the supernatural realm that he cannot exist in natural realm. It is because I have never experienced conversing to a talking, burning bush or having been able to see a blindingly illuminant humanoid figure with its back turned on me inside a tent as Moses supposedly have experienced based on the mytho-historical records known as the Holy Scriptures (Quran, Bible, Torah or similar ones) How accurate are they? Who was recording these events as they happened? Most certainly those were not a first hand accounts.

Seemingly interesting trump card(s) in this cosmological game of cards is men like Jesus which, although based on witness accounts, serves as an entity representing 'God' in natural, therefore humanly knowledgeable form but still can create 'supernatural' phenomenon e.g. water-wine thereby bridging supernatural to natural realm. Since the latest version of the Bible (New Testament) is the closest that I can speculate on, it would prove that the concept of 'God' has a concrete reference point i.e. Jesus or some other men that can replicate the same phenomenon that he can.

The question is that do we have any scientific evidence of a Jesus/counter-part figure ever existing? Could we at least use a reliable record in human history that could serve as an anchor from which a debate or search would start upon? I'm also thinking whether this will be a productive endeavor which ever way it ends... Will that end have a significant effect to the lives of at least rational individuals who still believe in 'God' as a concept or otherwise? I say this because religion and similar philosophies and its fanatic constituents will just close their eyes on the facts, scream and die.

On a side note, just having the very word 'supernatural' in the human (English) vocabulary entails that some influence (I vote for Plato as its representative) has been passed down just like what Rand says about 'common sense' being an Aristotelian influence.

Just want to share that. I know that the case I present is very murky indeed and needs a lot of refinement to state it correctly but I propose that we slice through this with reason and logic and let's see how far this topic can be discussed with present evidences to start off with premises. So, gentlemen, shall we?

Edited February 28, 2010 by David Lee

[9thdoctor]

Something that bears reviewing is Smith’s Wager, a kind of counter to Pascal’s Wager, it’s reproduced here on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism:_The_Case_Against_God

It’s a great book, available from fine booksellers for decades now. I have a bad habit of lending it out, so I’m short a copy at the moment.

[psychoanaleesis]

Something that bears reviewing is Smith’s Wager, a kind of counter to Pascal’s Wager, it’s reproduced here on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism:_The_Case_Against_God

It’s a great book, available from fine booksellers for decades now. I have a bad habit of lending it out, so I’m short a copy at the moment.

Very clear. I accept this premise.Is the George there the same person as the one we got here? I'll say that I admire his thinking. Thank you and thank you George.

If I were there when Pascal stated his argument, I'd say this: It's because Christianity/religion precisely opposes reason. It dictates that I should never question the odds which you present. Suppose I take your word for it, which is very irrational, I might add... If I am to become a Christian and there is no God, then what the hell have I been doing spending my time in church for?? I could have slept on Sundays or done any frigging thing that I wanted! Can you give me my time back? I'll want a refund you bastard! LOL.

Edited February 28, 2010 by David Lee

[tjohnson]

In a sense, I don't think pondering 'god' is different than pondering 'dark matter', for example. We can view "the theory of God" alongside of all the other theories we have and when viewed this way it doesn't hold much water at present.

[9thdoctor]

If I were there when Pascal stated his argument, I'd say this:

I've shared this before, but what the hell:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Yes, it's the same George H. Smith. Either that or one hell of an impersonator.

[9thdoctor]

In a sense, I don't think pondering 'god' is different than pondering 'dark matter', for example. We can view "the theory of God" alongside of all the other theories we have and when viewed this way it doesn't hold much water at present.

Dark Matter refers to something in reality, however ill-defined it is at present. Maybe you should invest the time in the Lawrence Krauss lecture, it’s really good:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7921&st=0&p=90632&hl=lawrence%20krauss&fromsearch=1entry90632

[tjohnson]

In a sense, I don't think pondering 'god' is different than pondering 'dark matter', for example. We can view "the theory of God" alongside of all the other theories we have and when viewed this way it doesn't hold much water at present.

Dark Matter refers to something in reality, however ill-defined it is at present. Maybe you should invest the time in the Lawrence Krauss lecture, it's really good:

http://www.objectivi...h=1entry90632

I agree that we have some indication that "dark matter exists". On the other ( I have 4 fingers and a thumb ), we have no indication that "God exists", and this is why I say, viewed as a theory, it is a very poor one.

[DavidMcK]

Thanks Ninth Doctor, for the link; it has been so long since I read George's book I had forgotten about his wager, it made me laugh.

[Peter]

David wrote:

The question is that do we have any scientific evidence of a Jesus/counter-part figure ever existing? Could we at least use a reliable record in human history that could serve as an anchor from which a debate or search would start upon . . . . I know that the case I present is very murky indeed and needs a lot of refinement to state it correctly but I propose that we slice through this with reason and logic and let's see how far this topic can be discussed with present evidences to start off with premises. So, gentlemen, shall we?

End quote

I can’t see any way to debate the existence of mythical figures. Figures of Faith are not scientifically verifiable. I know there are those who are looking for Noah’s ark or Atlantis, to no avail, even though the bible says Noah landed on Mount Ararat. I don’t think you are going to find archeological proof to bolster faith. I “believe” the “Devout” need no Scientific proof. The word of a mystic or the “revealed truth” in a holy book is sufficient proof. A believable History Book will not contain faith based material.

Some scientists are looking for a mystical gene they think will be found in believers. Some humans may be pre-disposed to gullibility. (I would call it “bull-ibility.) At age 12, I was forced to study for my first communion in the Episcopal Church and I revolted, and told the Father, I just don’t believe this stuff. He told my grandmother, who then bribed me, to continue my studies and I passed the test. And for a year I was an alter boy lighting candles, and carrying the cross. I feel faint thinking about it. Now, I refuse to step into a church, unless it is for some other reason than worship.

There is the Thomas Aquinas approach and the logical, syllogistic approach (is that what it is called ???) Last seen trying to prove that the “Big Bang,” was God saying “Let there be light!” was the new Pope. He seems like the best of all the Popes I have seen in my lifetime. Pope Benedict XVI recently said there was no conflict between science and Catholic or Biblical teaching. The Big Bang was God creating the Universe.

Count me out.

Thanks to Ninth Doctor for the link to Gordon Humpty Smythe’s very good article on atheism. Of course Ghs may not make one of his revered entrances now.

To make up for a lack of observable flouncing, I will include an old letter about humor at the end.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

CAUTION! CAUTION! CAUTION!

OLD LETTER FOLLOWS. THE HUMORLESS SHOULD VENTURE NO FURTHER.

From: "Monart Pon" <monart@starshipaurora.com>

Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com

To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [starship_Forum] HUMOR: Chicken Philosophy

Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 05:47:05 -0000

Just in case you haven't heard these poultry profundities below, have a few clucks. But if you did, well, cluck again anyway. (Appreciation of each depends on one's familiarity with the individual's names.)

Since Ayn Rand was missing from the list, I added her answer at the end.

Monart

~ * ~

http://www.infiltec.com/j-chick2.htm

Chicken Philosophy

WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD???

Plato: For the greater good.

Aristotle: To fulfill its nature on the other side.

Karl Marx: It was a historical inevitability.

Machiavelli: So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a chicken which has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road, but also with fear, for whom among them has the strength to contend with such a paragon of avian virtue? In such a manner is the princely chicken's dominion maintained.

Hippocrates: Because of an excess of light pink gooey stuff in its pancreas.

Jacques Derrida: Any number of contending discourses may be discovered within the act of the chicken crossing the road, and each interpretation is equally valid as the authorial intent can never be discerned, because structuralism is DEAD, DAMMIT, DEAD!

Thomas de Torquemada: Give me ten minutes with the chicken and I'll find out.

Timothy Leary: Because that's the only kind of trip the Establishment would let it take.

Douglas Adams: Forty-two.

Nietzsche: Because if you gaze too long across the Road, the Road gazes also across you.

Oliver North: National Security was at stake.

B.F. Skinner: Because the external influences which had pervaded its sensorium from birth had caused it to develop in such a fashion that it would tend to cross roads, even while believing these actions to be of its own free will.

Carl Jung: The confluence of events in the cultural gestalt necessitated that individual chickens cross roads at this historical juncture, and therefore synchronicitously brought such occurrences into being.

Jean-Paul Sartre: In order to act in good faith and be true to itself, the chicken found it necessary to cross the road.

Ludwig Wittgenstein: The possibility of "crossing" was encoded into the objects "chicken" and "road", and circumstances came into being which caused the actualization of this potential occurrence.

Albert Einstein: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends upon your frame of reference.

Aristotle: To actualize its potential.

Buddha: If you ask this question, you deny your own chicken-nature.

Howard Cosell: It may very well have been one of the most astonishing events to grace the annals of history. An historic, unprecedented avian biped with the temerity to attempt such an herculean achievement formerly relegated to homo sapien pedestrians is truly a remarkable occurence.

Salvador Dali: The Fish.

Darwin: It was the logical next step after coming down from the trees.

Emily Dickinson: Because it could not stop for death.

Epicurus: For fun.

Ralph Waldo Emerson: It didn't cross the road; it transcended it.

Johann Friedrich von Goethe: The eternal hen-principle made it do it.

Ernest Hemingway: To die. In the rain.

Werner Heisenberg: We are not sure which side of the road the chicken was on, but it was moving very fast.

David Hume: Out of custom and habit.

Saddam Hussein: This was an unprovoked act of rebellion and we were quite justified in dropping 50 tons of nerve gas on it.

Jack Nicholson: 'Cause it (censored) wanted to. That's the (censored) reason.

Pyrrho the Skeptic: What road?

Ronald Reagan: Well,...................

John Sununu: The Air Force was only too happy to provide the transportation, so quite understandably the chicken availed himself of the opportunity.

The Sphinx: You tell me.

Henry David Thoreau: To live deliberately ... and suck all the marrow out of life.

Mark Twain: The news of its crossing has been greatly exaggerated.

Mishima: For the beauty of it. The chicken's extension of its sinuous legs sent shivers of a dark despair into the souls not only of the silently watching hens but also the roosters, who felt a sudden sexual desire for their exquisite comrade. The dark courage of the chicken was as beautiful as drops of dew upon jade at midnight, struck by a partial moon, its light filtered through clouds. One of the deeply aroused roosters could stand the intensity of the moment no more and bit off the head of the beautiful, courageous chicken-hero, whose wine blood was deliciously drunken by the road, and he died.

Johnny Cochran: The chicken didn't cross the road. Some chicken-hating, genocidal, lying public official moved the road right under the chicken's feet while he was practicing his golf swing and thinking about his family.

Camus: The chicken's mother had just died. But this did not really upset him, as any number of witnesses can attest. In fact, he crossed just because the sun got in his eyes.

John Sununu (again): I would argue that the chicken never crossed the road at all. That it is a story concocted by the Clinton Administration to distract attention from their failed agriculture policy. Where is the evidence that the chicken crossed the road? Where, Michael?

Michael Kinsley: Oh, John, come on! Everybody knows the chicken crossed the road. What evidence do you need? It's obvious that the chicken crossed the road. Your whole argument is just a smoke and mirror tactic to distract us from the fact that most chickens polled now back the Democratic Party. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, John.

Siskel: I don't know why it crossed the road, but I loved it. Thumbs up!

Ebert: I disagree. The whole thing left the audience wondering; the chicken's crossing the road was never clearly explained and the chicken didn't emote very well. It couldn't even speak English! Thumbs down.

Michael Kinsley: But you both agree it did cross the road, right? See, John. I'm right as usual.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

AYN RAND: TO CHECK ITS PREMISES!

[Selene]

In a sense, I don't think pondering 'god' is different than pondering 'dark matter', for example. We can view "the theory of God" alongside of all the other theories we have and when viewed this way it doesn't hold much water at present.

Dark Matter refers to something in reality, however ill-defined it is at present. Maybe you should invest the time in the Lawrence Krauss lecture, it's really good:

http://www.objectivi...h=1entry90632

Wow!

Excellent. Remarkable speaker.

This question has stimulated quite a lot of conversation since this afternoon at our little think tank:

"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."

I have been immersing myself in some of the theoretical ideas that have been pouring out of the Hubbel findings, but this wove a lot ideas into a beautiful mosaic blanket.

Thanks again.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

harking back to the original post--it should be said that there is not one piece of firm evidence that the person traditionally called Jesus of Nazareth actually did anything he is claimed to have done, and that we have no reason to believe that any specific statement made about him in the New Testament is factually accurate, or that any of the sayings attributed to him were actually said by him. A fortiori regarding the supposed miracles. There is a high probability that a person named Yeshua/Jesus who was a native of the Galil (Galilee) was for a short period an itinerant preacher/teacher with a small band of followers, and was crucified on the grounds of political sedition by the Romans because various sources outside the Gospel indicate such a person existed. But that's all we can say. The Gospels are not historical accounts: they are riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, even on some important matters. John, for instance, says the crucifixion took place on an entirely different day from what the other gospels say. And some scholars have argued that Jesus did not in fact exist. About 1960 or so, for example, one scholar published a book claiming that Christianity was actually a cult which took mushrooms as a holy food that enabled them to have visions, and that Jesus was in effect a mass hallucination. Apparently Jesus did live and die at the hands of the Romans and the Jewish establishment. But we are not entitled to make statements saying "Jesus said this" or "Jesus did that".

(And as a teen I read a novel by Frank Yerby in which he narrated the events of the Gospels giving naturalistic explanations for the miracles. For instance, walking on water was simply Jesus steering himself while standing on a raft, but the waves kept the apostles from seeing the raft.

Edited March 1, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[psychoanaleesis]

Jeffrey:

Indeed you are correct. If 'God' (or at least the Christian version) were to be omniscient, present, potent and yadah, yadah, yadah... Then God could have at least get his interpreters get the story straight as he would foresee that men with independent minds would begin to question the existence of 'God'. I see my flaw in assuming that I am looking for something accurate that is only a mere reference to something else and so on without having the unequivocal evidences at hand.

As for the book, I'd like to read it. It seems like a refreshing take from all the nonsense has been drilled into my head and retarding my intellectual growth. While I was writing my post I had a funny notion that people like Moses were so gullible (or delusional) that their neighbors play tricks on them like setting a bush on fire and calling his name from somewhere hidden from view.... funny, but it happens.

I see atheism having its merits for it uses reason fully and thereby liberating one's mind of fear from a supposedly unquestionable being and essentially expanding ones morality.

Thank you.

Edited March 1, 2010 by David Lee

[BaalChatzaf]

In a sense, I don't think pondering 'god' is different than pondering 'dark matter', for example. We can view "the theory of God" alongside of all the other theories we have and when viewed this way it doesn't hold much water at present.

The dark matter hypothesis is a physical hypothesis to account for why stars in galaxies do not follow the motion curve that Kepler's laws imply. It is a physical hypothesis to account for an observable physical effect.

The assumption that god, God or the gods exists is a different kind of assumption, the kind of assumption that can not, even in principle, be falsified. In the mean time, every effect that the god-hypothesis purports to explain, has been explained by other and testable hypotheses. So god, like the luminiferous aether is an unnecessary assumption.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

In a sense, I don't think pondering 'god' is different than pondering 'dark matter', for example. We can view "the theory of God" alongside of all the other theories we have and when viewed this way it doesn't hold much water at present.

The dark matter hypothesis is a physical hypothesis to account for why stars in galaxies do not follow the motion curve that Kepler's laws imply. It is a physical hypothesis to account for an observable physical effect.

The assumption that god, God or the gods exists is a different kind of assumption, the kind of assumption that can not, even in principle, be falsified. In the mean time, every effect that the god-hypothesis purports to explain, has been explained by other and testable hypotheses. So god, like the luminiferous aether is an unnecessary assumption.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Every effect except possibly "the big bang" ?

[anonrobt]

In a sense, I don't think pondering 'god' is different than pondering 'dark matter', for example. We can view "the theory of God" alongside of all the other theories we have and when viewed this way it doesn't hold much water at present.

The dark matter hypothesis is a physical hypothesis to account for why stars in galaxies do not follow the motion curve that Kepler's laws imply. It is a physical hypothesis to account for an observable physical effect.

The assumption that god, God or the gods exists is a different kind of assumption, the kind of assumption that can not, even in principle, be falsified. In the mean time, every effect that the god-hypothesis purports to explain, has been explained by other and testable hypotheses. So god, like the luminiferous aether is an unnecessary assumption.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Every effect except possibly "the big bang" ?

Except, maybe, there was no 'big bang'...

[psychoanaleesis]

Except, maybe, there was no 'big bang'...

Then how does one account for the increasing distance between galaxies? Only a blast that is presently continuing could have that effect.

Edited March 1, 2010 by David Lee

[BaalChatzaf]

Except, maybe, there was no 'big bang'...

Or, perhaps, the so-called Big Bang was an intermediate event in an eternal sequence.

Please look at Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang -- Rewriting Cosmic History

by Paul Steinhardt and Niel Turok.

Their ekpyrotic hypothesis assumes the Big Bang was the collision of two branes. With their hypothesis which makes the same predictions as the expanding Big Bang hypothesis the Big Bang we know and love is just an intermediate happening, not a beginning from Nothing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Except, maybe, there was no 'big bang'...

Or, perhaps, the so-called Big Bang was an intermediate event in an eternal sequence.

Please look at Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang -- Rewriting Cosmic History

by Paul Steinhardt and Niel Turok.

Their ekpyrotic hypothesis assumes the Big Bang was the collision of two branes. With their hypothesis which makes the same predictions as the expanding Big Bang hypothesis the Big Bang we know and love is just an intermediate happening, not a beginning from Nothing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Scientific American Magazine - September 26, 2005

The Beauty of Branes

Lisa Randall's thinking on higher dimensions, warped space and membranes catalyzed ideas in cosmology and physics. It might even unify all four forces of nature

By Marguerite Holloway

It was the summer of 1998, recalls Harvard University physicist Lisa Randall, when extra dimensions finally pulled her in. Extra dimensions--beyond the four we encounter every day (three of space plus one of time)--have been an ingredient of theoretical physics for decades: mathematician Theodor Kaluza proposed a fifth in 1919, string theory requires 10 of them, M-theory needs 11. But Randall hadn't much use for them, she says, until that summer when she decided they might be helpful to supersymmetry, one of the conundrums she was pondering. Randall contacted Raman Sundrum, a Boston University postdoctoral student with whom she had previously collaborated, and asked him if he would like to brainstorm about extra dimensions and membranes--"branes," as they are called for short. Branes are domains or swaths of several spatial dimensions within a higher-dimensional space. The everyday world we live in could be a three-brane, for example, and it is anyone's guess as to what dimension brane it might be embedded in. "Raman had already thought about branes and extra dimensions, and he was an obvious person to join forces with," Randall explains

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-beauty-of-branes&print=true

FYI folks:

I knew your spelling was good, I was not familiar with these.

Thanks Robert.

Adam

Post Script: Really enjoyed the synchronic presentation.

[Xray]

I've been chewing on this idea for quite a bit and I've just found my stand on the matter of 'God' existing as a fact. Not surprisingly, the conclusion is: No. God does not exist since the concept of God is based on a supernatural entity belonging to the supernatural realm that he cannot exist in natural realm.

It is because I have never experienced conversing to a talking, burning bush ...

Even if you had had the subjective experience of a burning, talking bush giving you a 'celestial message', this would constitue no evidence of the existence of the supernatural. For it would be impossible to conduct any proof that it was a god communicating via the talking bush and not just a hallucination on your part.

Statements like "God exists" / "God's will is ..." reflect a thinking error which presents a mere belief (which can't be verified by any evidence) as a fact.

The question is that do we have any scientific evidence of a Jesus/counter-part figure ever existing?

No.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

I've been chewing on this idea for quite a bit and I've just found my stand on the matter of 'God' existing as a fact. Not surprisingly, the conclusion is: No. God does not exist since the concept of God is based on a supernatural entity belonging to the supernatural realm that he cannot exist in natural realm.

It is because I have never experienced conversing to a talking, burning bush ...

Even if you had had the subjective experience of a burning, talking bush giving you a 'celestial message', this would constitue no evidence of the existence of the supernatural. For it would be impossible to conduct any proof that it was a god communicating via the talking bush and not just a hallucination on your part.

Statements like "God exists" / "God's will is ..." reflect a thinking error which presents a mere belief (which can't be verified by any evidence) as a fact.

The question is that do we have any scientific evidence of a Jesus/counter-part figure ever existing?

No.

You both have clearly never made love with a redheaded woman.

[sbeaulieu]

You both have clearly never made love with a redheaded woman.

Adam,

I have a new addition to my "to do" list

As to the OP, I'm curious on one two issues that I followed some years back; Turin Shroud and the Ark.

Turin Shroud - The Jesus Conspiracy. Of particular interest is the origin of the Mandylion imagary and its usage from 6th century and beyond. In the book, the scientist marks approximately 20 points of reference that are mirrored on Mandylion images and the face on the shroud. The ramification for the Vatican if this was actually proven true would crush their religion altogether...hence the introduction of a false sample in the carbon-dating procedure carried out in the late 80s. I could go on about this one, but the link does a better job.

Ark - A few TV shows I've seen on this indicate a good possibility of its existence. However, expeditions to Mt. Ararat are restricted by the Turkish government (to what purpose, I do not know). In one show, evidence of stone anchor blocks were strewn across low-lying areas of the mountain. In checking some maps labeled Mt Ararat Anomaly, there isn't a clear picture, but several historical pictures are available that elude to something manmade, in that the geometry of the anomaly stands out from its surroundings.

Does this prove there is a God...doubtful.

~ Shane

Edited March 3, 2010 by sbeaulieu

[psychoanaleesis]

You both have clearly never made love with a redheaded woman.

???? Natural or dyed? What do you mean by this?

[Selene]

You both have clearly never made love with a redheaded woman.

???? Natural or dyed? What do you mean by this?

Only natural redheads count.

[psychoanaleesis]

You both have clearly never made love with a redheaded woman.

???? Natural or dyed? What do you mean by this?

Only natural redheads count.

Hahaha! True enough. Red heads are almost impossible to find in this country (discounting foreigners). But still, what ever could you mean?? Shall I just drop this pursuit?

[Selene]

You both have clearly never made love with a redheaded woman.

???? Natural or dyed? What do you mean by this?

Only natural redheads count.

Hahaha! True enough. Red heads are almost impossible to find in this country (discounting foreigners). But still, what ever could you mean?? Shall I just drop this pursuit?

Not at all.

I have always had a passion for natural redheads. I find them to be incredibly erotic.

I knew someone who called it glow in the dark bush...which is real tacky, but I always think of these connectors when I hear about the "talking burning bush" from the bible.

I have a very bizarre, some friends of mine would say, sick, or, psychotic part of my "humor."

I suggest to them that they should stop laughing at it then.

Lol

Adam

must remember not to type too fast

Edited March 3, 2010 by Selene