Evidence of Deity

@jeeprs,

Hello Emil, perhaps you should send "that" letter to Dawkins; he most assuredly would give you an A. Sorry, I didn't understand a word you had to offer. It gives credence to "if you can't dazzle.....................baffle.

Many have the capacity that impels them to have a thirst for knowledge and it is a compulsion to satisfy that thirst. Granted we do have those language barriers, and much can get lost in interpretation, but much can get lost in what can be offered from those who have much in regards to knowledge too.

What good can be gained if so many cannot understand what it is you are offering? I am sure in academia this sort of communication is admired and revered, but is it not possible, from one so learned, to bring it down a couple of notches is he chooses to really be heard by all? Or is he just talking to himself for validation of himself? Hmmm? That knowledge has to have merit some where or what's the use, huh?

If you could tone it done a little so all could respond, I think what you have to offer could be heard by all and benefit.

William

@jeeprs,

Don't worry, William, it was the forum equivalent of a food-fight, about which I am now rather ashamed to have indulged in.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;113618 wrote:

The Anthropic Principle is embarassing to many scientists, precisely because it seems to suggest a kind of uber-intelligence at work behind the scenes. However various lines of argument have been developed to remove this embarrasment. Surely the most gratuitously ridiculous of these is 'the multiverse theory' which holds that there are an infinite number of universes, of which 'ours' is only one that has produced life (which is why we can comment on it). All the other ones are not bio-friendly at all. How anybody can subscribe to such an idea and say that it is 'scientific' with a straight face is beyond me. To me it seems far more ridiculous than anything in Aquinas. But scientists will go to any lengths to avoid acknowledging even the possibility of Deity. (In fact, Anthony Flew, who Ken referred to above, and who was a leading non-theist philosopher for most of the 20th Century, late in life adopted a Deist view of the matter. Dawkins et al atttibuted this unwelcome defection from their ranks to 'senility'.)

Though I'm no fan of dawkins, how are you sure that these theories are unscientific? I think you are relying to much on your psychological analysis of dawkins and other scientists.

Biology News: Hawking rewrites history... backwards

Quote:

Out of this profusion of beginnings, the vast majority withered away without leaving any real imprint on the Universe we know today. Only a tiny fraction of them blended to make the current cosmos, Hawking and Hertog claim.
That, they insist, is the only possible conclusion if we are to take quantum physics seriously. "Quantum mechanics forbids a single history," says Hertog.

I'm not comfortable with dismissing a physics theory that's believed by people who know far more about it than I do.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;115490 wrote:

Though I'm no fan of dawkins, how are you sure that these theories are unscientific?

How do you experimentally prove or disprove the existence of other universes?

How is the idea that there are multiple other universes which we can never experience or verify scientific, in any sense? What kind of evidence could there be?

I do have an open mind. If these questions can be answered I will be quite prepared to change my view.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;115499 wrote:

How do you experimentally prove or disprove the existence of other universes?

How is the idea that there are multiple other universes which we can never experience or verify scientific, in any sense? What kind of evidence could there be?

I do have an open mind. If these questions can be answered I will be quite prepared to change my view.

It seems like they are claiming them to be testable:

Quote:

In other words, some of these alternative histories have left their imprint behind. This is why Hertog and Hawking insist that their 'top-down' cosmology is testable. Hertog says that the theory predicts the pattern of the variations in intensity of microwave background radiation, the afterglow of the Big Bang now imprinted on the sky, which reveal fluctuations in the fireball of the nascent Universe. These variations are minute, but space-based detectors have measured them ever more accurately over the past several years.
As the two researchers work out top-down cosmology in more detail, they hope to be able to calculate the spectrum of these microwave fluctuations and compare it with observations.

At least, I think you can reasonably believe that there is a scientific explanation for the universe. Takes a bit of faith if you aren't a physics phd. I'm not even sure what they are really saying about it here.

I think the best "proof" of gods existence will always be the pragmatic argument such as the one william james proposed. They are at least immune to the dawkins style militant/activist approach.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;115502 wrote:

It seems like they are claiming them to be testable:
.

C'mon. You gotta do better than that. Who is 'they' and what are they claiming?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;115504 wrote:

C'mon. You gotta do better than that. Who is 'they' and what are they claiming?

Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog. They claim that the theory predicts the pattern of the variations in intensity of microwave background radiation.

@jeeprs,

I see what you mean - so they do.

As I have said before somewhere in this thread, I am not one to try and prove the existence of Deity. In my view, Deity is beyond existence, by definition. All I am interested in doing is keeping open to the possibility.

The original question was, Dawkins often says that religious faith consists of the willingness to believe in propositions for which there is no evidence. So I asked 'what would evidence consist of'?

The other day I went and posted on the Dawkins forum again. It produced a small crop of predicatable responses. (i.e. 'We're all protein blobs and nature is as dumb as a bag of anvils'....I really must stop going there, although for me it has a strange attraction, like returning to the scene of a nasty accident.)

I realise that the whole Dawkins movement is really about an attitude to life. Dawkins is interested in hypotheses which unite, and provide explanations for, a diverse range of phenomena. Of course, Darwin's theory combined with genetics is a case in point. It is a relatively simple principle which he feels explains everything about life. He has a quasi-religious belief in this principle.

But he feels that religion is presenting an 'alternative hypothesis', and one for which he can see no evidence, save for what he thinks is the idiotic behaviour of religious people (of which the worst examples are terrorists).

So I can see why he thinks like he does. In his world, his thinking is perfectly sensible.

But I don't think he understands many aspects of religious thinking at all. Certainly, there are some religious people, mainly fundamentalists, who think exactly like he supposes; in fact they're the ones who are likely to argue with him, an as a result, he most resembles them in his attitudes. But as I try (and always fail) to point out on the Dawkins forum there are many other ways of being religious or spiritual. It is not like 'a bad form of science'. It is a different way of being, with its own logic and rules. This is described very clearly in Karen Armstrong's The Case for God, although Dawkins (and his followers) prejudice is so utterly ingrained that it is literally impossible for them to understand what the book says. They will only hear what they are prepared to listen to.

I am thinking of writing something called 'How [Not] To Think about God' which goes into the limitations of thinking with regards to the nature of deity, and various religious and mystical 'modes of cognition' which are associated with specific states of being.

@jeeprs,

Isn't it the case that how deity is defined determines whether or not one can provide evidence for its existence, or at least what kind of evidence could demonstrate it?

@jeeprs,

I don't think Deity can be defined. Indeed definition is not always possible, nor even desirable, with such very general terms. In these cases, a dialog concerning the extent and meanings of the term is preferable. It is more like developing a working model, or accepted usages within a certain realm of discourse. But all of them would be provisional or tentative, I would suggest.

---------- Post added 12-31-2009 at 11:31 AM ----------

I suppose, in addition to that, you could offer a definition of the nature of Deity according to various authorities such as Aquinas.

Looking up 'defintion of God' in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library returns some useful ideas:

Quote:

THE question whether God can be defined, depends for its answer on what is meant by definition. Cicero372372De Oratore, i. 42, 189, edit. Leipzig, 1850, p. 84. says, "Est definitio, earum rerum, qu? sunt ejus rei propri?, quam definire volumus, brevis et circumscripta qu?dam explicatio." In this sense God cannot be defined. No creature, much less man, can know all that is proper to God; and, therefore, no creature can give an exhaustive statement of all that God is.

I don't read Latin. However I suppose that is what my initial response was getting at.

However the passage goes on:

Quote:

To define, however, is simply to bound, to separate, or distinguish; so that the thing defined may be discriminated from all other things. This may be done (1.) By stating its characteristics. (2.) By stating its genus and its specific difference. (3.) By analyzing the idea as it lies in our minds. (4.) By an explanation of the term or name by which it is denoted. All these methods amount to much the same thing. When we say we can define God, all that is meant is, that we can analyze the idea of God as it lies in our mind; or, that we can state the class of beings to which He belongs, and the attributes by which He is distinguished from all other beings. Thus, in the simple definition, God is ens perfectissimum, the word ens designates Him as a being, not an idea, but as that which has real, objective existence; and absolute perfection distinguishes Him from all other beings. The objection to this and most other definitions of God is, that they do not bring out with sufficient fulness the contents of the idea.

Source

So I suppose in this sense, a 'definition' is possible. The reason for my circumspection, however, is that I feel a great deal of debate about God is conducted on the basis of complete missapprehension of what the word actually means. My own conception, such as it is, is partially Christian, but also contains much influence from the Hindu and Buddhist outlook which is worlds apart from the semitic understanding in many ways.

Dawkins in The God Delusion makes the claim that 'for God to have designed anything, he must be more complex than what has been designed, and so must be infinitely complex. No such being could exist' (that is my recollection of the argument, although I don't have a copy on hand. He does however regard this argument as 'irrefutable'.)

This is contradicted by the understanding provided in many places in scholastic theology that 'God is utterly simple'. How a being that is 'simple' can generate the apparent infinite complexity we see around us is obviously a very deep question and I won't attempt to address it. But the fact that Dawkins believes that God must be complex, indicates that what he considers to be Deity, is completely different to the idea of Deity which is the subject of theology.

So in Dawkins terms, he may be quite correct in saying that 'God is a delusion'. But this may well be because he has no conception of what he is actually denying. So he might be denying something, the existence of which has never been asserted in the first place. And wasting a considerable amount of energy in so doing.

@jeeprs,

The fact that the theory of evolution has never really been proven (no random mutations ever improve any species) and the complex order of the universe and life are rational and logical indicators that there is a Creator.

@sword,

sword;119978 wrote:

The fact that the theory of evolution has never really been proven (no random mutations ever improve any species) and the complex order of the universe and life are rational and logical indicators that there is a Creator.

You asked for it...

:slap:

@sword,

sword;119978 wrote:

The fact that the theory of evolution has never really been proven (no random mutations ever improve any species) and the complex order of the universe and life are rational and logical indicators that there is a Creator.

Well - I think there is abundant evidence of the theory of evolution. It is no use denying plain facts and if you study the evidence with an open mind, you will see that there is abundant evidence.

But my philosophical outlook is very similar to 'theistic evolution' - evolution guided by deity. I believe evolution has a specific tendency and direction, namely towards ever greater levels of awareness. So I think it must be possible to accept both evolution and the Creator.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;119993 wrote:

Well - I think there is abundant evidence of the theory of evolution. It is no use denying plain facts and if you study the evidence with an open mind, you will see that there is abundant evidence.

But my philosophical outlook is very similar to 'theistic evolution' - evolution guided by deity. I believe evolution has a specific tendency and direction, namely towards ever greater levels of awareness. So I think it must be possible to accept both evolution and the Creator.

But all that means is that the existence of God, and the truth of evolution are logically compatible. That seems to be true, but it isn't a particularly strong claim to make. It only means that both can be true.

@jeeprs,

well it's enough for me. Maybe I'm easily satisfied.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;113428 wrote:

So the question is this. If there were a God - let's describe it as 'Deity' - what evidence could there be for its existence?

Great question but a funny one as well, in my opinion. The question really needs to be analyzed before it can be answered. When you talk about a deity, what exactly are you referring to? Is it some sort of being that came up with the functionality of the universe but then once finished goes and takes a nap and is never heard from again? It seems rather odd that a being would create something and not meddle with it. Or that it could simply just be an observer without getting involved in some way. Even if that deity did just make up the rules and then did nothing additional it makes the deity useless. For example.

If a programmer designs a flawless piece of software, do we need to keep the programmer around? No, once it is complete and working, who cares about the programmer anymore? Unless there are bugs and flaws in the design, you would need the programmer around to fix those issues. But if the deity were that incompetent we might have to question it's status. My point is that the deity would be unimportant.

The only way in which the programmer would be relevant is if the programmer purposely designed the software to require it's presence. But that means the software was design specifically for the programmer and not for any other reason. If this is the case then there is something missing. The software would have to identify the programmer but here is the problem, the software has no ability to identify the programmer. So if it were designed for the programmer why does it not have the ability to identify it?

What am I trying to say? That if this whole creation was created by a deity who wanted to be known, why not make it's existence known? Would it be too difficult to make it's existence known? Or is it beyond the ability of the deity to do that? It seems rather silly that this convoluted system of believe in me or else face damnation but ill purposely keep my existence vague and ambiguous.

To put it another way, it would be like getting mugged on the street by gun point, and the robber says, if you can guess my middle name I will not harm you but if you guess wrong, I will kill you. How the hell are you suppose to know something like that?

For some reason people are completely fine with that problem. They think they know the middle name of the robber and have absolutely no problem. The funny thing is when you ask them, they all give different answers.

@Krumple,

Krumple;120009 wrote:

Great question but a funny one as well, in my opinion. The question really needs to be analyzed before it can be answered. When you talk about a deity, what exactly are you referring to? Is it some sort of being that came up with the functionality of the universe but then once finished goes and takes a nap and is never heard from again? It seems rather odd that a being would create something and not meddle with it. Or that it could simply just be an observer without getting involved in some way. Even if that deity did just make up the rules and then did nothing additional it makes the deity useless. For example.

If a programmer designs a flawless piece of software, do we need to keep the programmer around? No, once it is complete and working, who cares about the programmer anymore? Unless there are bugs and flaws in the design, you would need the programmer around to fix those issues. But if the deity were that incompetent we might have to question it's status. My point is that the deity would be unimportant.

Aha. But this doesn't come to terms with the fact that there is not and never has been a 'flawless application'. It is an idealisation. Think of the 'perpetual motion machine'. Simple idea - just build a machine that, once started, continues forever. But there is no such machine. You might make a piece of software that can execute indefinitely on a computer. Nevertheless the computer must always be maintained indefinitely for it to work. The computer is a boundary condition for the software. If there's a power cut or the machine breaks down, it will not run. Some external agency will have to start it again.

One point in Buddhist philosophy is that nothing is 'born of itself'. There is no specific thing that exists independently of causes and conditions, and the existence of which is not caused by something else. This kind of rules out the 'software that runs forever' also.

Krumple;120009 wrote:

The only way in which the programmer would be relevant is if the programmer purposely designed the software to require it's presence. But that means the software was design specifically for the programmer and not for any other reason. If this is the case then there is something missing. The software would have to identify the programmer but here is the problem, the software has no ability to identify the programmer. So if it were designed for the programmer why does it not have the ability to identify it?

What am I trying to say? That if this whole creation was created by a deity who wanted to be known, why not make it's existence known? Would it be too difficult to make it's existence known? Or is it beyond the ability of the deity to do that? It seems rather silly that this convoluted system of believe in me or else face damnation but ill purposely keep my existence vague and ambiguous.

I think there is value in the kind of knowledge that has to be striven for. In traditional philosophical spirituality, the understanding is that we don't know, or can't see, the nature of deity because our vision is affected by selfishness, ignorance, and the like. A lot of people expect life to be something like television or a computer - you point the remote at it, or give it a command, and get a result. But when it comes to questions of this nature, life is not like that. Things in life that are really worthwhile are often very difficult - learning an instrument, mastering a language, and so on. Spiritual knowledge is like that also. It is hard to master. You don't just open the fridge door and get it out.

Why do hermits, recluses, and yogis renounce home and family and all their possessions in search of this knowledge?

Krumple;120009 wrote:

To put it another way, it would be like getting mugged on the street by gun point, and the robber says, if you can guess my middle name I will not harm you but if you guess wrong, I will kill you. How the hell are you suppose to know something like that?

For some reason people are completely fine with that problem. They think they know the middle name of the robber and have absolutely no problem. The funny thing is when you ask them, they all give different answers.

I think I detect in a lot of your contributions on religious topics a distinct anger about god or religion. I guess you have a reason for this. I personally don't feel the same way about it though. So this is not an analogy I would use. I have spent a lot of time studying religions and spiritual ideas. When I set out, I didn't realise what a large part of my life it would become. But one result is that I have 'made peace' with it. I know people are capable of stupid and dreadful things in the name of what they think of religion. But I just see that as the worst aspect of human nature now. I don't blame God for it any more.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;119993 wrote:

Well - I think there is abundant evidence of the theory of evolution. It is no use denying plain facts and if you study the evidence with an open mind, you will see that there is abundant evidence.

But my philosophical outlook is very similar to 'theistic evolution' - evolution guided by deity. I believe evolution has a specific tendency and direction, namely towards ever greater levels of awareness. So I think it must be possible to accept both evolution and the Creator.

There is no need to try to harmonize "evolution" with creation because the theory of evolution is esoteric, gnostic and pantheistic disguised in science; the idea that everything can become just by itself sounds a lot like buddhism to me. Besides according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) the universe is not evolving but degenerating toward chaos. Even the Bible says that the world is not evolving but degenerating because of sin.

@jeeprs,

Oh well Sword. You're talking to a Buddhist (with pantheistic and gnostic leanings) who accepts the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection as a scientifically accurate account of how life developed. So I guess we are not going to have much in common. However I have argued extensively in other threads that I believe that in another sense, life is not 'self-creating', as there is nothing in existence which is self-creating. But I have no interest in young-earth creationism or biblical literalism and won't generally argue with those views, if that is where you're coming from.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;120061 wrote:

Oh well Sword. You're talking to a Buddhist (with pantheistic and gnostic leanings) who accepts the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection as a scientifically accurate account of how life developed. So I guess we are not going to have much in common. However I have argued extensively in other threads that I believe that in another sense, life is not 'self-creating', as there is nothing in existence which is self-creating. But I have no interest in young-earth creationism or biblical literalism and won't generally argue with those views, if that is where you're coming from.

Since the truth exists we shouldn?t tolerate everything, should we? Tolerance has to have a limit certainly. I hope we can agree someday.

Philosophy Forum

Evidence of Deity

Quick Links

My Account

able2know