Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 420. (Read 845565 times)

well he *made* the universe.  that means he's outside it.  right?

It's fun, isn't it? Playing with the idea of proving God, or not?

Consider, the only way we prove things is with what we have to prove them. What we have are the things of the universe, and there are a whole lot of these that we don't yet know how to use, maybe don't even know they exist.

So how are we ever going to prove a God Who, in part, exists outside the universe?

the spaghetti monster is scary.  i'd vote for him instead of god

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

Dictionary definition of God:


See that "creator and ruler of the Universe" part?   Yes, there is nothing about 'monotheistic' or 'polytheistic' that speaks to this, but that's where the word "god" comes in.  There is nothing about space teapots that says anything about being ruler of the Universe, but the word 'god' does.  Referring to the FSM and asserting it to be "the one and only god and [creator of] the universe" as you did, let me point out the obvious which is that the FSM, made of spaghetti, would need to be spaghetti before creating a Universe that catalyzes spaghetti, thus invoking a contradiction.  That's not a poor rebuttal, either, it's just your fault for selecting a bad analogy for comparison.

But, if all you're talking about is a semantic difference, then I can play that game, too.  I'll just set the term 'absolute truth' equal to 'god,' and since the existence of absolute truth is easily proven, thus god is proven.  If you want to arbitrarily set FSM and space teapots to 'god,' then I can do the same with the term 'absolute truth' by your method of reasoning.  

First of all, IDGAF about what you say. You are the biggest flaming idiot here, whose contributions are often little more than just gibberish and insults. Second, why the fuck would the OP ask you (of all people) to babysit this thread? Regardless, if the OP felt the need to moderate this thread, he would've made it moderated. Third, if ever you don't like what you see and feel it should be moderated, then just hit the "Report to mod" button. We are actually on topic whereas you are not. Go here and here if you really want to learn of my god's existence, but we all know you won't because of your linkaphobia. Now either contribute something worthwhile or kindly fuck off and leave the adults to their discussion about god.

Can you not take the hint, or plain stupid?

The word monotheism comes from the Greek monos, which means one, and theos, which means god. Thus, monotheism is a belief in the existence of a single god. Polytheism, is the belief in many gods. Neither definition specifies whether such gods need be "omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent" as there is no need for them to be as such. Therefore the teapot and FSM do qualify as being monotheistic gods in this respect.

Also, there is no need to liken the FSM to the teapot, just as there is no need to liken either of them to any other gods any more than there is a need to make any comparisons between Buddha and Allah. It was your choice to do so, but it was incorrect to assume it necessary to define any of them. Therefore I'd just like to reiterate, that the teapot and FSM are indeed monotheistic gods. Now if you like you can argue that they aren't as impressive as an "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent" god, but that in itself does not make them any less valid, just less appealing to worship. BTW, since it is stated that the FSM is the one and only god and it did create the universe, I do believe it is just as worthy of being worshipped as much as any other god you may have in mind.

Wow, it's late. Good night all. 

This constantly quoting picture's of idiotic nonsense (fun in the beginning, but a pain in the end) need's to stop, and since the OP asked me to continue this thread, I shall ask ya to stop quoting every quote?

There's nowt worse than having to scroll through too many quote's, for the next line which has nothing to do with anything quoted?

If the fuckin spagetti brain didnae eat so much bolognese, he'd know how to start his own thread, solely in order to promote said shit..

I am speaking to the testimony of the "true believer"—not theorizations thereabout.

Okay, then yes, you are referring to the problem of induction.  I agree, it's a problem because it implies you already know what something is before you've explored it.

There's a better approach.  It's described here: http://ctmu.org/

Click on the link, and then click "here" in the first bullet point that says, "Christopher Langan's article on the Theory of Theories, can be viewed here."

Omg.. I really need to be around here more.. I kinda tried catching up, and thought, wtf?

What does religion have to do with 'GOD'?

More importantly, what does religion have to do with the scientific proof of said 'GOD'?

Since religion itself would actually prevent us finding any such evidence, should it exist, then I think it fair to say that religion should be kept out of it, since if religious folks found the evidence, they would deny it anyway.. as this thread clearly show's.

I'm speaking to the difficulties of evidencing one's fiction.

To clarify, are you referring to the problem of putting the cart before the horse, i.e asserting a definition before exploration (which is similar to the scientific limitations resulting from the problem of induction)?

My criticism speaks to what "is said" about "God," not what could be said thereabout.

What exactly do you mean that my argument implies that there is no need to differentiate between mono- and polytheistic gods?  Of course you need to differentiate between the two, which is exactly why using space teapots and flying noodles as analogues to a monotheistic god is invalid.  My argument wasn't that it's stupid, it's that the FSM is likened to a teapot (i.e. a conditional event) which is then likened to a monotheistic god (i.e. a unconditionally necessary event).  I'm not just using the word 'stupid' without explaining why.

How is a space teapot or the FSM like a monotheistic god?  I'm not sure why you think this would be the case.  Monotheistic gods are often described as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.  If that's the case, it would be akin to being a fly on an elephant such that, no matter which empirical angle you select, you will never be able to observe the whole elephant in it's entirety.  This is why monotheistic gods are beyond the scope of empirical study.  A space teapot/FSM, however, is not.  Point the Hubble towards the sun's orbit and you will conclusively be able to determine whether a teapot exists there (same goes for FSM).

And I'm not specifically talking about the Christian god.  I don't belong to any religion.  I'm mostly going by the "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent" definition of God which I find to be most common.

I would imagine you are familiar with "1 = 1"; however, it would seem you are unfamiliar with the following:

(That is to say, every member of the Christian Trinitarian "God" is each individually that "God" and not each other.)

There's no need to make the unnecessary assumption that God "says" anything at all.  First, we need to establish a method of exploring the God concept to determine whether it must exist by logical necessity. You took it a step further by invoking a secondary characteristic.  

But truly, there is really only one good starting point from which you can begin to explore the God concept, and that is to start working on a theory of theories themselves.  Absolutely every single definition that we have for anything is actually a theory of that thing.  For example, if you look up "apple" in the dictionary, that is essentially a theory of the apple...of the things that gives an apple its apple-ness that allows it to be distinguished from everything else.  So, it's only logical that we must start with a theory of theories so that we can know how the theories we create in our minds are related to the things we form theories about.

That argument is a logical fallacy. First of all, using your argument, there is no need to differentiate between monotheistic or polytheistic gods, since your argument is simply to state that "it's stupid". Second, if anything, Russell's Teapot and the FSM are true examples of monotheistic gods, whereby those theologies make no mention of there being any other gods in existance. On the other hand, the chistian god (which I assume you are using as your example) is actually a fine example for a polytheistic god, as it is made up of a Holy Trinity, being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the majority of god worshipping people on this planet would agree that the chirstian god is a false god, since they believe the real one to be a different god such as Allah or Buddha. (Actually Buddha is not seen as being a god, but you get my meaning.)

So long as a "God" is said to impact "His" world, "His" world will try that impact. If it cannot, "He" was not.