Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

144. Your puzzlement is unnecessary.

Sun Feb 23, 2014, 12:45 AM

Feb 2014

You imply the math must either be understood or be accepted. Leaving aside whether you understand his math and physics, I do not accept his conclusions (or bow to them in dazzlement) simply because he claims they support his claim. As I said, I'll wait to see if his math holds up after others trained in it examine it.

What you have done is produce "scientists who believe that science has something to say about religion", not demonstrated that science itself is an apt tool to determine if god(s) exist.

Regarding Hawking, I understand him to hold there is no need for a god to explain the universe. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." I know that he does not believe in a god or the afterlife.

That is not the same thing you say he said. I'll ask you a second time: produce the quote or link to that.

And yes, you are appealing to authority:

Stenger says so.

Dawkins says so.

Hawking says so.

Krauss says so.

You cannot dispute Krauss because he knows the math and you don't. Therefore, to not accept his conclusions is "strange".

You haven't read The Grand Design. I can't discuss it until you do.

As I said originally. Nothing new. Not a thing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

187 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Where Do We Come From?: The 7 Most Intriguing Philosophical Arguments for the Existence of God [View all] BridgeTheGap Feb 2014 OP

To the addled and brain-dead they offer "food for thought" skepticscott Feb 2014 #1

The author himself admits that many are "easily refuted" philosophically. And they have been Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #78

The most-interesting question is actually "why is there something instead of nothing?" stopbush Feb 2014 #135

Yeah, but... What is there in "nothing" that can be unstable? Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #165

Lawrence Krauss addresses that question in his book, "A Universe From Nothing." stopbush Feb 2014 #166

Krauss is talking about empty space. Jim__ Feb 2014 #170

Empty space? stopbush Feb 2014 #171

Maybe that's where your author is coming from: "space" implies certain presuppositions/things Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #185

That's not really the thrust of Leibniz's argument Act_of_Reparation Feb 2014 #186

While I find the whole argument about the existence of god cbayer Feb 2014 #2

There are many, many things that we cannot "(prove) one way or another"... trotsky Feb 2014 #14

Abortion was not murder according to the early Catholic church. stopbush Feb 2014 #29

They couldn't even prove it to themselves! trotsky Feb 2014 #36

These are funny, thanks! trotsky Feb 2014 #3

As to your #1 Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #6

LOL, that could quite possibly be true! trotsky Feb 2014 #13

I just recommended it to a friend heading to that area Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #16

Agreed. n/t trotsky Feb 2014 #20

The computer simulation idea is just another example of religionist thinking stopbush Feb 2014 #17

Good points! n/t trotsky Feb 2014 #19

The simulation conjecture has some pretty solid math and physics behind it. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #57

Indeed. Here's my answers to those. longship Feb 2014 #41

This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Feb 2014 #72

Even if number 5 is true, SheilaT Feb 2014 #128

There is pretty much zero evidence that Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #130

A single confirmed example edhopper Feb 2014 #132

Like I said, wait for it. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #133

The trouble with AI edhopper Feb 2014 #134

i cant be sure of you either, thus the turing test. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #137

perhaps edhopper Feb 2014 #142

A hypothetical. Aliens arrive at planet earth. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #147

I don't doubt that machines can gain consciousness edhopper Feb 2014 #149

But imagine what a joke it would be on the God believers SheilaT Feb 2014 #136

I see the scurrying has already started. rug Feb 2014 #4

Do you really think these are "intriguing"? Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #7

They are for the most part thoughtful and old arguments. rug Feb 2014 #8

Here's the most laughable one Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #9

You should read Anselm's original argument then. rug Feb 2014 #10

You should really read Gaunilo then. Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #11

Flaws do not make an argument laughable. rug Feb 2014 #12

Most philosophers today would call them "semantic." They play on oddities of words; "equivocation" Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #81

Epicurus, then, must no longer be relevant. rug Feb 2014 #82

I got to go with you on this one rug edhopper Feb 2014 #85

Epicurus they say, did not believe in God. He's one of the better ancient philosophers Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #122

Interesting read. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #5

Why? stopbush Feb 2014 #15

Did you read it? Did you find it interesting? cbayer Feb 2014 #18

I did read it. These are old and hackneyed arguments that can be dismissed with stopbush Feb 2014 #21

The author acknowledges that many can be easily dismissed, cbayer Feb 2014 #24

The author says many can be easily dismissed, I say all can be easily dismissed. stopbush Feb 2014 #26

I think the alien and hackers theories probably post-date Aquinas. cbayer Feb 2014 #30

But those aren't religious ideas, are they? stopbush Feb 2014 #34

That's the point of the article. cbayer Feb 2014 #37

Here ya go: stopbush Feb 2014 #46

So an uncited picking from wikipedia is what you base your definition of god on? cbayer Feb 2014 #49

Playing games, are we? stopbush Feb 2014 #52

Perhaps playing games and I think the clock has just run out. cbayer Feb 2014 #55

Wow. You believe a few casual posts in an internet discussion group stopbush Feb 2014 #60

Nothing personal, I was just really done for the day. cbayer Feb 2014 #87

Fair enough. No offense taken. stopbush Feb 2014 #97

One would hope that the anti-religionists could come up with anything - anything - new. rug Feb 2014 #69

They did. It's called science. stopbush Feb 2014 #73

Actually, science is completely mute on religion. rug Feb 2014 #80

Science also works in collecting evidence for phenomena edhopper Feb 2014 #83

To date I have not seen a single experiment to test the theory of God. rug Feb 2014 #84

How did you not understand my post edhopper Feb 2014 #86

I did, quite well. rug Feb 2014 #88

Yes edhopper Feb 2014 #90

If you can give me one experiment to test that hypothesis. rug Feb 2014 #92

Only if you maintain that edhopper Feb 2014 #93

If you want to take that route you must design the experiment. rug Feb 2014 #94

Since i see no evidence for the existence of God edhopper Feb 2014 #98

There is no such example other than what an cbayer Feb 2014 #100

No, I don't "know that" edhopper Feb 2014 #104

Yes, I would say that if there was a god, "he" would be pretty vague, cbayer Feb 2014 #107

The problem is edhopper Feb 2014 #110

I won't admit what? cbayer Feb 2014 #111

because to think that edhopper Feb 2014 #112

Of course their religious beliefs may have a major impact on their actions. cbayer Feb 2014 #113

Epicurus' argument against god is entirely philosophical. rug Feb 2014 #101

I quote him edhopper Feb 2014 #103

No I don't see the implication, if the intent is to relate his paradox in some fashion to science. rug Feb 2014 #105

It's what I implied edhopper Feb 2014 #106

By that I take it you mean within recorded history. rug Feb 2014 #108

and that would leave me with my view edhopper Feb 2014 #109

Which leaves me with my view that religion does not exist to explain how the universe works. rug Feb 2014 #114

But why does God exist? edhopper Feb 2014 #116

If I ever see him that will be my first question. rug Feb 2014 #117

Suggested reading: "God - The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger. stopbush Feb 2014 #96

At least two of the eight attributes in his "Scientific God Model" game the results. rug Feb 2014 #102

And what would those two attributes be? stopbush Feb 2014 #118

Three and eight, pages 42-43. rug Feb 2014 #119

Those aren't Stenger's parameters, per se. They're the parameters that are common to stopbush Feb 2014 #120

No, that model is precisely what he attempts to disprove over the next 200 pages. rug Feb 2014 #121

Could you give your definition then edhopper Feb 2014 #123

Simply, it is transcendent. rug Feb 2014 #125

Yes, something from nothing is an interesting question edhopper Feb 2014 #126

Those are the questions I find compelling. rug Feb 2014 #127

When you say outside natural experience edhopper Feb 2014 #131

It is that but it's also something so far outside physical laws as to be unreachable. rug Feb 2014 #138

I actually think edhopper Feb 2014 #140

Let's back up a bit in this discussion. stopbush Feb 2014 #129

Stenger's position as a philosoper is a fact, not a ploy. rug Feb 2014 #139

This message was self-deleted by its author edhopper Feb 2014 #141

All I'm doing is providing you with citations of scientists who believe stopbush Feb 2014 #143

Your puzzlement is unnecessary. rug Feb 2014 #144

"As I said, I'll wait to see if his math holds up after others trained in it examine it. " edhopper Feb 2014 #145

Peer review is not an appeal to authority. rug Feb 2014 #146

So why wouldn't a professor of both particle physics edhopper Feb 2014 #148

When the number of names dropped reaches four, it's a safe bet there's an appeal to authority. rug Feb 2014 #151

That sounds rather arbitrary edhopper Feb 2014 #153

Those scientists are not mute on the subject; science itself is. rug Feb 2014 #156

Says you edhopper Feb 2014 #157

And thus this subthread reaches its nadir. rug Feb 2014 #158

This message was self-deleted by its author stopbush Feb 2014 #150

Here's an easy experiment to disprove the existence of the Christian God: Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #174

It is interesting to see why people might believe in God. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #22

My experience has been that ultimately, belief in god is a conceit. stopbush Feb 2014 #23

Well the question of how did God get created is an interesting question. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #25

I think we all know how god was created: evolution. stopbush Feb 2014 #27

We disagree but that makes life interesting. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #28

Why do you hope there is something beyond this life? stopbush Feb 2014 #32

Is that how you view our beliefs? hrmjustin Feb 2014 #35

Me neither. It's a fairy tale apparently created by some who reject it. cbayer Feb 2014 #38

Yes it is ironic. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #39

How do you as a Christian reconcile Jesus saying that he will condemn to eternal hellfire stopbush Feb 2014 #42

I pray that prayer in the BCP everytime I am about to receive communion. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #44

Glad you don't believe in hell, but Jesus certainly did. stopbush Feb 2014 #61

I think that is all a matter of interpretation. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #62

That would be the Gospel of Thomas. stopbush Feb 2014 #63

That is one of them but thats not the one I was thinking of. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #64

Most likely some other Gnostic tome. Many of them agree on basics like the "no hell" meme. stopbush Feb 2014 #65

Lol the mets are purgatory. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #66

Certainly you can provide citations for your claim that Jesus said that. cbayer Feb 2014 #45

Of course I can provide citations. stopbush Feb 2014 #50

I can see how you could could come to the conclusion that you did cbayer Feb 2014 #53

"God exists in the minds of man and nowhere else" - talk about conceit. cbayer Feb 2014 #31

Try these: stopbush Feb 2014 #33

Try this: There is no god because it doesn't exist cbayer Feb 2014 #40

The difference between me and believers (like you) is that you disbelieve in only ONE fewer gods stopbush Feb 2014 #43

I'm not a believer, but I understand why you might label cbayer Feb 2014 #48

Actually, the "one fewer god" argument is a great argument that never goes out of style. stopbush Feb 2014 #58

Wrong. okasha Feb 2014 #152

So you don't understand the edhopper Feb 2014 #154

We don't "automatically assume" that skepticscott Feb 2014 #155

Just playing the percentages, my dear. stopbush Feb 2014 #160

And it would be just playing the percentages okasha Feb 2014 #187

No, it's just another piece of dogmatic tripe pulled from the usual play books. cbayer Feb 2014 #163

Says the room's champion skepticscott Feb 2014 #164

Anybody taking the "religion" side in these arguments can't really demand original ideas stopbush Feb 2014 #167

L. Ron was pretty edhopper Feb 2014 #168

And just as valid as any other religion, if we're to be honest about it. stopbush Feb 2014 #172

What exactly do you think the "religion side" is? cbayer Feb 2014 #169

Activism isn't exactly an idea, let alone a new idea. stopbush Feb 2014 #173

And I can assure you that my experience was very different than yours when cbayer Feb 2014 #175

What are YOU looking for? Apparently, you want it both ways. stopbush Feb 2014 #177

I am looking for common ground instead of the same old tired arguments cbayer Feb 2014 #178

There's your problem. There really is no common ground between religion and atheism. stopbush Feb 2014 #179

Of course there is. cbayer Feb 2014 #180

True, but that common ground is found outside of our religious belief or non-belief. stopbush Feb 2014 #181

No necessarily. Some religious people are on that ground because cbayer Feb 2014 #182

I find that sad, ie: that people would need to turn to religion stopbush Feb 2014 #183

Sad? Somehow I doubt that, and I also doubt that they need your pity. cbayer Feb 2014 #184

Oh stop it. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #59

Aha!! Got you here, my friend!!! longship Feb 2014 #51

Good points all, but this was a specific response to this specific person cbayer Feb 2014 #54

I know that. longship Feb 2014 #56

How arrogant of you skepticscott Feb 2014 #89

It sounds like you take Anselm's ontological argument seriously muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #75

Except that no one says that, cbayer. It's just something else you made up skepticscott Feb 2014 #91

Can you prove that statement is wrong? trotsky Feb 2014 #47

Do you find death desirable? rug Feb 2014 #68

I find it to be the natural order of things. There's no getting around it. stopbush Feb 2014 #74

Why do you question why people have different reactions to the fact of death? rug Feb 2014 #77

I didn't compare death to Disneyland. I compared belief in an afterlife to Disneyland. stopbush Feb 2014 #95

Our parents. Next. nt Deep13 Feb 2014 #67

I suppose it might be interesting to unpack these arguments, to see the underlying mechanisms, struggle4progress Feb 2014 #70

Still a great topic for philosophy goldent Feb 2014 #71

Those are absolutely pathetic arguments and here are their rebuttals: DetlefK Feb 2014 #76

Sense. Iggo Feb 2014 #99

When philosophy entertains this question, has it left the realm of philosophy? BridgeTheGap Feb 2014 #79

I would say it's definitely a philosophical question. Jim__ Feb 2014 #115

I think of philosophy edhopper Feb 2014 #124

None of these are intriguing... MellowDem Feb 2014 #159

These are incredibly antiquated questions/answers. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #161

God is love...so it says groovedaddy Feb 2014 #162

at least some of these can be equally used to "prove" that god doesn't exist unblock Feb 2014 #176