Changing Your Mind
What, if anything, would ever change your mind?
During the Ham and Nye debate a few years back a percipient question ↓ was asked of the debaters:
What, if anything, would ever change your mind?
The question was about the existence of God. The question of course tests the objectivity of the individual.
Since nobody is omniscient none of us could possibly claim to hold the truth. Even those who deem the Bible, et. al. the truth and accept whatever it states, still have chosen to deem the Bible divine. They have indeed made a choice and thus might be wrong.
This applies to everyone from gnostic atheist to gnostic theist.
What, if anything, would ever change your mind about the existence of God?
Could you change your position about the existence of God
Voting has Ended
Select
Option
Votes
No. (I will never change my position on whether or not God exists.)
10
Yes. (It is possible for me to change my position on whether or not God exists.)
15
Tags
Who is online
468 visitors
What would change your mind about the existence of God?
Evidence and/or proof.
Any specific examples of evidence that would persuade you to change your position?
I suppose it would depend on the evidence presented. Perhaps some ability attributed to god?
For example, I am not convinced that our universe is the product of a sentient entity. If our universe was indeed forged by a sentient entity then I would consider that entity to be 'God'.
Accordingly, I would seek evidence of an entity powerful enough to create our universe. I do not think it is possible to literally prove this is 'God' but I can devise a test that would cause me one hell of a pause. For example. here is one test to gather positive evidence that an entity who claims to be the creator of the universe might actually be telling the truth:
We ask the God candidate to demonstrate cosmological powers. To keep the test within our ability to verify I would do something local (within our solar system). An example test is for the God candidate to create a second sun and have the two suns orbit each other in the center of our system. And this would be done in such a way that Earth would not be harmed but the entire solar system would reorient to account for the gravitational dynamics of an orbiting sun pair.
We have all sorts of methods to verify this so if it is an illusion, the trickster would have to be powerful enough to change all of our instruments (including telescopes) or consistently control all of our minds. Which would be another evidence for God because if an entity can control our minds, it certainly would be God to us.
Unlike Ken Ham, I need more than an ancient book.
Neither am I.
If some entity appeared and showed me how it made the universe, that might be convincing.
That's the key: seeking evidence. not going by what someone simply says or what some ancient book says.
And then put everything back to normal afterwards.
You and me both. But unfortunately, some people have pretty low standards of what they find convincing.
Well if it's an omnipotent, all powerful God for which nothing is impossible, that God would know exactly what it would take to change our minds even if we ourselves didn't know what example to ask for.
Maybe there is a God who isn't all powerful but just powerful enough to know what weak minded humans would accept as evidence which is why some do claim they've seen evidence in their own lives and become believers. Since this has not happened for all humans one might conclude that this God is either very finicky, prejudiced against certain people or possibly where they were born, or isn't all powerful as some believe because it's not powerful enough to convince non-believers of its existence.
Reminds me of a joke I heard recently on the history channel...
Why did Cleopatra need a psychiatrist?
Because she was Queen of denial...
Matt Dillahunty?
Had to look him up but he seems to be pretty bright. His view on morality basically matches my own:
"(Matt's) key contentions on the issue are that secular moral systems are inclusive, dynamic, encourage change, and serve the interests of the participants, whereas religious moral systems serve only the interests of an external authority".
Sounds clever, flawed it is, nevertheless.
I am sitting here thinking about a people who were slaves in a foreign land Egypt who saw such extraordinary (super - natural) events that someone thought he should make a record of these events for future generations to reflect back on. That was Moses in the Old Testament. Next, I am thinking about a people in Israel who were witnesses to a man named Jesus who performed extraordinary (super - natural) events and so much so that they thought they should write them down in a set of books. That would be the Apostles in the New Testament. Finally, I am thinking about missionary journeys where extraordinary (super - natural) acts took place and it was highly considered that these you be encapsulated in epistles (letters) which found their way into a compile book called: The Bible
Moreover, I remember this telling:
Doubting Thomas: A doubting Thomas is a skeptic who refuses to believe without direct personal experience—a reference to the Apostle Thomas, who refused to believe that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to the ten other apostles, until he could see and feel the wounds received by Jesus on the cross.
The moral:
There have always been new generations of humanity whom have made themselves "unrelatable" and "unreachable" to God as Spirit and in their turn has asked for a more direct and personal experience across their senses of God. That is, God simply give humanity a public viewing of 'greatness' and power, and then we will believe and write about it for all other generations to come to know you were here. . . .
Er, a cosmic "show" with classic Shock and Awe figures will set this planet's presses to printing and many will believe. But, as a new generation 'crop up' they will surely demand a new more elaborate super - natural display of God's greatness and power. For then they believe and write about it for— Hey!!
Now can we see why Jesus said:
and,
As opposed to some entity magically making the universe appear? That's not an explanation. That's just grasping for one.
Well certainly not magic.
Science has a formal explanation for the formation of the universe starting at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang. There is no sentient entity in the explanation. The first 10-43 seconds are a mystery, for now. Maybe this is where a sentient entity seeds the universe. Maybe this is a dynamic of quantum mechanics that we will discover in the future. At this point, the objective answer is that the first planck time is a mystery, but after that physics as we know it offers a decent explanation for cosmological evolution. To wit, the honest assessment is 'we do not know'.
'God did it.': In the mysterious beginning, there is zero evidence of a sentient entity seeding things. Based on what is the insertion of an extremely powerful sentient entity (that is entirely unknown) more plausible than our universe emerging as a result of a (to be discovered) phenomenon in the fabric of existence?
He also likes to say that he does not know what would cause him to believe in a god, but that anything worthy of being a god certainly would know and could convince him. He ends with: either way it is not my problem.
I think you and Matt have a ton in common. Both in history and current positions.
I addressed that in my comment. I was very careful to be clear on that very point.
Sure I can. Where is the evidence of a sentient entity seeding things? If we do not have any such evidence then we have zero evidence. And if you have the evidence I guarantee you will be instantly famous.
We do not know how the universe began (first 10-43 seconds) and we have no evidence that it was seeded by a sentient entity. A true statement; both propositions are true.
So if someone is trying to make themselves "reachable" by God, is the only way to tell yourself to just want to believe thus opening yourself up to the possible spiritual connection? And if that's the case, and there really are spirits, what prevents the bad spirits from walking in the open front door? Do you have any way to differentiate between a good spiritual connection and a bad one? If I open myself to Vishnu or Allah, will they simply not give me any sort of connection because they don't exist and I'm barking up the wrong tree? Or might I experience some spiritual connection like the other billion plus Muslims thus confirming Allah is the true God? You claim that people need a "direct and personal experience across their senses of God" but does that only happen if you're beseeching the right God in the right way?
If God were a traveling salesman and had the cure for all my ills, do I just buy every bottle that every traveling salesman tells me will cure all my ills and take them all just incase? How can I tell which salesman has the cure and which ones are just snake oil salesman offering opium laden whisky to cure everything under the sun, even cancer?
If I open myself and just wait for some spiritual experience, how will I know the difference between a true experience and perhaps just a bout of gas? Do you just pick a God then charge ahead with conviction? Or do you wait for a God to pick you? Do you base your God choice on what's popular in your neighborhood? Or do you attempt to do analytical research on all religions to narrow down the choices before throwing yourself on a specific gods mercy?
I ask all this, because I once tried very hard to figure out which religion was the true religion. I realized that the odds I just happened to be born in the right town in the right country that worshipped the right God seemed far too convenient for me. After some serious study I realized that every religion has people who claims to experience a spiritual connection, and all of them believe they are connected to and are worshiping a "true God". Yet none of them could give any real quantifiable evidence or examples of things their deity could do for them that was unique. None had anything special that set them apart from the rest other than perhaps Buddhism. Buddhism is about as close as a religion can get to being an atheistic religion and believes there are no wrong paths to spiritual enlightenment, but there are also no specific god/Gods and there is no permanent self or soul to living beings, so it's a bit of an anomaly religion. But if you have some fool proof way to tell the difference between a true religion and a false one, I'd love to hear it.
"For now?" What do you plan to get you beyond this point? Is man planning to stand inside a singularity? The 'instance of creation' —that is not a rational statement. Is man planning to watch a new universe 'burst' on the scene, and having done so, how will man and his machines I imagine peer into and 'across' this singularity?
These are really positive statements about a set of actions not likely to happen and certainly not going to happen in time to create such optimistic statements!
Believers speak of God because our lives are impacted by God. Clearly, your life is not impacted by God. So this "God did it" phrase is stupid being created by people who assume to know more about matters they 'swear' they want nothing to do with.
Do you have evidence of how non-life became life? Or, evidence for how non-intelligence became intelligence?
Excuse me, but its time: these are nonsense questions and I can't take you serious for telling the group you are a former official in church leadership when you approach discussion improperly. So DP, you're own you own to read comments when they post or go began the journey to understanding and taking these matters seriously.
Are you serious? Science lives on the edge of the unknown. Since when does not knowing something mean that it will never be known? Good grief man.
Apparently you do not understand how science works. Do you think a human being shrunk down to the sub-atomic particle scale to observe quantum dynamics? Do a little research Cal. As tempted as I am to get into an explanation of science, this is not what this article is about. Also, how do you think we know anything about what happened 13.7 billion years ago since nobody was there?
Do not go personal.
Try to talk about the topic (or at least somewhere near the topic).
Some evidence, but it is not conclusive. Abiogenesis is an ongoing area of research. Why do you ask? Did someone claim to know the origin of life? What does this have to do with my comment?
Care to restate this?
Cease going personal. Talk about the content, not personal comments on the members commenting.
I really don't think you want me on your article. So . . . .I'm out of here. 'Pile on' that!
Please point out to me where I was "improper"? What about my comment can't be taken seriously? Which of my questions are "nonsense questions"? If you feel you can't or simply don't want to answer my questions then just say so, or ignore me, or, if they are so easily answered as to not be taken seriously, please explain what I apparently can't see. Describe for me what you claim as a spiritual connection as if you were describing the color blue to someone who was born blind.
Just repeating the scripture "because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." doesn't explain why or how, it's just a statement made in an ancient book and frankly, doesn't seem like very good advice. It's supposed to be Christ speaking to Thomas, it's where the phrase "doubting Thomas" comes from. Thomas says he won't believe Christ had risen from the grave till he saw him and saw the holes in his hands and feet and when they supposedly met Christ says “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”. Apparently, the Christ of the bible had no problem giving evidence or being asked for it. We have an awful lot of doubting Thomas's today so, is it really wrong to say, as one of the twelve disciples supposedly did, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”? That's all any nonbeliever is asking for, show us some evidence. If Jesus' own disciple had to ask for proof, is it really such blasphemy to ask for the same today?
Taking the word of dozens of authors ancient writings over hundreds of years, then having a group of male priests deciding which letters and books were worth keeping and cobbling them together with parts of the Old Testament at least 300 years after the supposed time of Christ and then blessed by a Roman Emperor doesn't seem to be a sound strategy for finding truth.
If someone is willing to believe that a god just magically appeared from nothing without explanation - or always existed - why do they find the "other option" so hard to believe?
I stated that upfront and repeatedly. Hello? We do not know what took place in the first 10-43 seconds.
I stated upfront and repeatedly that there is no evidence. - indeed our understanding of physics breaks down in the first planck time. That means no evidence supporting all hypotheses. We do not (yet) know what was going on in the first 10-43 seconds. So in all cases the correct answer is that 'we do not know' what took place in the first 10-43 seconds. You are repeating what I stated upfront as if you are making an argument.
You agree with what I wrote and are basically arguing with me that I am correct.
Good point.
But then to argue that because there is no evidence for any scenario for what took place in the first 10-43 seconds that there is no evidence for any scenario??
Why argue a tautology? X is true, therefore X!
What the non-scientists don't understand is that it's ok to say I. Don't. Know.
Well apparently some do not even recognize the difference between making a specific claim and noting a well-known fact.
'God created the universe' is a specific claim for which there is no evidence. It is quite correct to note that this is speculation - the reason is that there is no evidence.
However, noting that we do not yet know how the universe began is not a claim of anything. It is noting an undisputed fact of modern science. If I had claimed something like: 'a quantum asymmetry triggered a massive chain reaction which continues today' then that would be a specific claim. But I did not do that. I stated that we do not (yet) know.
So on one hand we have a specific claim: 'God did it' which is entirely unevidenced. On the other hand we have a statement of current fact: we do not (yet) know what caused the universe to come into being. Science can offer pretty good explanations for everything other than the first 10-43 seconds.
The only thing flawed is your entire rhetoric that doesn't even address anything I said and makes assumptions without any evidence or substantial backing.
That's only what you believe or cannot conceive of any other explanation. It's a simplistic, yet intellectually dishonest explanation which might provide emotional comfort. Neither can any believer prove there's a god or that said god actually had some conclusively tangible effect.
Funny how so many believers use the "god did it" or something along those lines as an explanation for things they do not understand.
Par for the course.
One cannot say, much less logically defend a claim of certainty like there absolutely is or is not a god. But whether an idea is plausible or not also depends on the available evidence to support it. One could say magical fairies created the universe. But I doubt many would consider such a thing as plausible.
The honest and most reasonable answer is no one knows. But one should not start making assumptions or outlandish claims in an attempt to formulate some kind of explanation.
If you refer to the Big bang, often deemed the beginning of our universe, then there is evidence for it.
i'm playing through then
If one claims that the universe was seeded by a sentient entity then that is a specific claim. Given there is no evidence to support that specific claim, it is mere speculation. Right?
Correct. But no specific 'other way' was posited. See? There is no evidence for how the universe came into being. Remember how this started:
That means that the posit that the universe is the product of a sentient entity is not evidenced and I am not convinced (appropriately) that it is true. You come back with this: ↓
You want me to provide another option other than a sentient creator. This is implicitly an argument from incredulity (from you) - a logical fallacy. You implicitly argue that God did it is the only explanation. So, here is my response:
That translates into: we do not know. We do not have anything that supports your specific posit of a sentient creator and we do not have evidence for any other speculation that someone might offer. We do not know.
You have somehow managed to not understand that 'we do not know' means that 'we do not know'. That the lack of evidence regarding the first 10-43 seconds (and indeed, the breakdown of modern physics) means that all speculation is unfounded.
How much clearer can I be here goosie? Given the lack of evidence I can clearly state that I am not convinced our universe was created by a sentient entity. Are you? If so, based on what evidence? Further, given the lack of evidence, I can clearly state that I am not convinced our universe manifested out of a quantum asymmetry or is the back-end of a black-hole or is a bubble in a multiverse. All speculation at this point.
See?
So there is no 'alternative' and 'God did it' is not an alternative either. Just speculation.
There are many possibilities and none of them have legs (as of yet). What, specifically, is your issue?
This is true.
Not really. Absurd options are more baseless assumptions than plausible explanations. The best "option" is "we don't know."
Did a lot of research and asked lots of questions. God has yet to get back to me.
Glad to hear that. That would mean we have been in agreement all along.
Or with anyone for that matter.
Nothing.
Yup. I knew that.
For me, it would be easy to change my mind. I will follow the evidence to where it leads (regardless of whether or not I like the end result). Basically, changing my mind means that I would move from not being convinced a god exists to thinking that a god might just exist. And by 'god' I mean the creator of the known universe. Should I witness something of cosmic proportions that evidences the kind of power needed to create cosmological bodies and control their dynamics, I would most definitely take that as serious evidence of that which matches the definition of 'god'.
An old errant book, however, does not do it for me.
Tig, your poll may be tilted. I will get into it more later. After I listen to the video above.
Then skip the Yes | No poll. The article is about the question:
What, if anything, would ever change your mind about the existence of God?
When faith runs out and at it end, there is no God before me.
I recently recounted my conversion story on another thread with a fellow commenter; the moment of conversion when 'lasting' faith clasped, interlaced, and intermingled, itself with my human faith. Now then, without going into the meaning of faith playing itself out over short or long periods, what is important to your question is this:
Will this faith bond hold against the tests of time ahead, can it absorb and shake off every 'blow' struck upon it? It has for decades now and it flexes, bends, repels, and reinforces itself.
What would ever change my mind about the existence of God? Answer:
To arrive at the end of my faith journey and not be met by God.
The irony of all this is God in Jesus has already instructed the believer to have confidence that God is with "us" on the odyssey.
How is it tilted? You're either gnostic or agnostic. It's an either/or choice.
I believe there is a flaw in the wording of the poll.
"None of us know for sure. " is actually a reason for not changing one's mind as well as changing one's mind, if one already believes "none of us know for sure".
I voted "yes" I won't change my mind . My reason is because "my mind" knows that the existence of God cannot, ever, be proven or disproven.
Maybe what my mind knows is wrong, but I don't think so. Anyway, you might want to reword the question.
This is a yes | no question. One can always find ways to misunderstand, but it seems rather clear cut to me.
Nonetheless I changed the wording (not the meaning) of the poll text to accommodate. (This is the end of the wording changes on the poll. The poll was supposed to simply be fun, not the content.)
You most certainly could change your mind on that position John. If you were provided proof that God exists or even if you were convinced that a proof is indeed possible, you would change your mind.
By voting 'yes' with your reasoning you stated (in effect) that you know 100% that it is impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. I doubt that is your position given you likely do not consider yourself omniscient.
The article focuses on the question:
What, if anything, would ever change your mind about the existence of God?
Do you have an answer for that?
I don't believe it will ever be possible to prove the existence of God, and it certainly won't ever be possible to disprove the existence of God, because God originates outside of this existence or nature (otherwise it wouldn't be supernatural, and thus not "God") , and we can't prove or disprove anything that comes from outside this nature.
By that reasoning we also could not have any information of God. If God to you is supernatural (and you define supernatural as outside of our range to ever engage) then how is it possible for anyone to have any information whatsoever about God? How, for example, could you possibly know that God is supernatural? You could not verify that because, as you say, there is no way for us to inspect the supernatural realm.
One can easily imagine a place to hide an unfalsifiable God, but in so doing one refutes the premise that one has information about said God (e.g. that one even knows God exists). The resolution of the paradox is that the God in question is, by definition, a product of the mind.
God is by definition an ALL powerful entity. It could originate outside this nature , but also effect this nature. Some human beings seek God, but they will never find God directly. They may find some of God's influences.
That is how I see it.
If God could effect (or even affect) our nature then we would have evidence of the interaction. And if that evidence is indistinguishable from undirected cause and effect, we would have absolutely no reason to presume a sentient entity of enormous power.
So we can simply declare that God is defined as an all powerful entity. We could also define God as Brahman. Or 'the force'. If there is no way to evidence God then we do not even have enough information to define God except as a product of our imagination.
My default position for 'God' is that 'God' is existence itself. I know existence itself is true (demonstrably). Other than that, we are speculating. So if I am forced to label something as 'God' I affix that label to existence itself since existence is the first attribute of everything that exists. Existence itself is, in a sense, the uber creator.
I find myself in complete agreement with your statement above. But for some it goes back to the old saying about swearing there is no Heaven, but ultimately praying there is no Hell.
By definition, god is also a supernatural entity. So if it influences or interacts with the natural realm, it is by definition no longer supernatural and can be detected within the natural realm.
That's just a confirmation bias: They want to find god, so they say/believe certain "influences" is the result of a god.
Then there is no way we can know, explain, or interact with a god or anything outside of nature. So any descriptions or attributes associated with a god is essentially meaningless and at best, just mere assumptions without any solid basis.
Sometimes,
i pray to god my mind will change, others,
i reason with myself, while others, i throw my hands up and have been heard to shout,
De Jesus Christ alrighty,
what's this GOD thing all about ???
I do the hokey pokey and i turn my self around, and that's what it's allabout!
When you wish to look behind you, about the proof that went poof, and belly flopped ri9ght in
my pudding, but then,
POP, goes Bill,
Just B'Cosby style, and he recites his 70's conversation with GOD !
Damn, surprised i remembered that, perhaps , god forbade me, from forgetting it.
.
I have difficulty with life spontaneously combusting in to rhymes,
cause, "guilty feet ain't got no rhythm", thus why god did not endow me with any dance skills, besides Moshing.
.
My arms got tired once, as the oars on the ark , where in coach, they only provided Animal Cookies, water, and phishing rods, and the damn stewardess's were rude.
Over the years I have had my mind changed about things (other than god), so I think if I was presented with information that was solid, I could have my mind changed one way or the other. Right now, I'm a fence sitter, (I'm sure some of you will be shocked about that, LOL! )
I love that you are open and transparent to state this!
You and I in a recent discussion were discussing Abraham and his relationship to God (I am going somewhere with this) and I went back to the Bible to read the account looking for something that was dramatized in a movie about the 'situation' with Isaac. Anyway, in the movie, creative license clearly was used to display Abraham in his tent going through mental 'testing' walking back and forth, wrestlin' with the idea of submitting to God his only son. He was a man highly aggrieved in the scene. The next day, this same man 'girded his loins' and when to carry out the order commanded of him.
The point here being this scene playing out above is not in Genesis!
The things we, well, "I" believe at the heart of my focus on what I believe are very old and many people in deliberate and 'loving' ways have the power and influence to manipulate the substance of faith—pulling on one thread here and 'yanking' on another all the way over. . .there and, sometimes the strings are flexible, or become stranded or *snap.* And, I must take the time and effort to restore proper meaning by returning to the Source for a "time of refreshing."
So for many people 'revolving' is certainly a way of looking at the God question and can be so for a long time. It's fair. And "God knows" its necessary.
Now, let me go answer Tig's question to me.
Depends on the definition of god.
Yahweh, Allah, Apollo, Zeus and their ilk? Absolutely fiction. Without indoctrination into one of their belief systems, no one would ever believe they existed.
An unknown, unknowable and/or indescribable entity that just creates? What does it matter if it exists or not? I have no interest in going snipe hunting looking for a creature that sprung from someone's imagination.
What, if anything, could cause you to believe in an entity that you would consider God (e.g. the creator of the universe)?
Nothing comes to mind. I think it is because I have watched videos explaining we live in an expanding universe with no discernible rhyme nor reason to the human intellect.
And there is evolution. Over the course of this planet's history, most life has gone extinct. Our species depends on cooperation for its survival on a hostile planet. I spend time trying to understand life that I know exists rather than an entity that I have no reason to believe ever existed. An entity that was created from imagination to answer a situation that was not understood at the time.
If there is/was a sentient creator, it seems as least as equally destructive as it is constructive and really not caring about life (or death) as we (humans) conceive it. I cannot imagine how or why such a creator would bother about making its existence known to me.
However, I am extremely happy that I got to experience life in this form and no longer question it after breaking free of childhood religious indoctrination. For all I know, the mayfly feels the same way about creators (or lack thereof) and the meaning of life.
and
Over my lifetime I have rationally concluded there is a God. And I have found there are several ways to arrive at a logical conclusion that there is a God.
But I have not yet determined what God means. God may exist or not exist; there are logical arguments for both. God may or may not be sentient; there are also logical arguments for both those conditions.
No, I will not change my mind concerning God because that is a logical, rational conclusion that has been tested over a lifetime. There is a God.
But you state that you have not determined what 'God' means or even if 'God' exists. That means your claim translates into: 'there is something that is currently undefined''. That statement is about as vague as one can get, right?
Further you state 'There is a God' right after stating 'God may exist or not exist; there are logical arguments for both. ' That seems to be a direct contradiction. So I admit I have no idea what point you are making.
Correct. For me, God is yet undefined. But my reasoning leads to a logical conclusion that there is a God. I have not yet progressed to a single logical definition of God; there are several possibilities. Since there is a God, then it follows that there is a rational 'definition' of God.
Existence is constrained by space and time. For something to exist, that something must be present in space and time. Space and time are emergent properties of the Big Bang. Space and time have a point of origin; a beginning. Existence constrained by space and time has not always existed.
Rationally God shares the same state of being as did the observable universe before the Big Bang. I could take a leap of faith and accept that space and time is eternal in which case God exists. But logic alone does not support that leap of faith.
I do not know how you can assert: 'since there is a God'. You have no definition for God so how can you even assert existence of same? There is no 'since' because that presupposes a truth that one clearly cannot presuppose.
That is a qualified (limited) definition for existence. Release your constraints and you have existence itself.
That presumes quite a bit. One can speculate about that which is outside of all observation, but it is necessarily pure speculation. The best one can do is note that existence IS and non-existence IS NOT. This simply is by definition of the words. That ultimately means that existence is eternal (existence does not emerge from non-existence by definition) and everything is an emergent property of existence (i.e. to be, something must exist). We have nothing that can take us beyond this definitional view.
Space and time are defined relative to our universe. They are terms of physics — terms we use to describe what we observe in our spacetime bubble. Space and time outside of our universe would necessarily have a different meaning (less constrained) than how we use the terms.
Logic arrives at a rational conclusion that God 'IS'. The definition of existence determines the existence of God.
The Big Bang did not create energy and matter. That leads to the rational conclusion that the Big Bang created space and time. Therefore space and time cannot be eternal.
If God was an internal influence resulting in the Big Bang then, logically, God is suffused throughout space and time just as energy and matter are suffused throughout the universe. If God was an external influence resulting in the Big Bang then, logically, God is outside of space and time created by the Big Bang.
How so? That sounds like an argument from ignorance fallacy. The definition of existence determines that there is existence.
Matter and energy was contained within the big bang until the Bang itself occurred.
Why not? Space and time may be cyclical events, like a repeating loop lasting trillions of years. Even if it the universe wasn't eternal, that does not automatically mean there is a god. Besides, if you're going to say the universe is not eternal, i.e. caused by something (presumably you think it's god), then using logic, who/what created god?
People understood that gravity 'IS' before arriving at a rational definition of gravity. It's necessary to first rationally conclude that something 'IS' before attempting to define that something.
I have arrived at a rational conclusion that God 'IS'. That is prerequisite for attempting to define God. I have arrived at the prerequisite conclusion that God 'IS' therefore attempting to define God is a rational activity.
But then the definition of existence determines the existence of Santa Claus. The fact that existence IS does not mean that God exists unless you equate God with existence itself. Do you?
As I pointed out, space and time are words we use in physics to describe conditions within our universe:
I am not sure I can improve upon what I already wrote above ⇑ since it seems crystal clear to me.
That would make God bound by the universe and make God that which creates itself. Anyway, not having a definition for God makes speaking of God incoherent.
Agreed.
We observed gravity and could provide detailed descriptions of its effects. Gravity was never a vague notion.
Unlike gravity, all you have offered are three letters: G, O and D. Unlike gravity you have nothing to point to as God. Your gravity analogy breaks down at the onset. Your statement is as meaningful as me claiming that xarphloquaters exist.
( Xarphloquaters exist! We have never seen one, saw any of their tracks, no evidence of what they consume, no notion of their size or weight, etc. We have no evidence whatsoever that suggests xarphloquaters exist but before I can define what a xarphloquater is I must first conclude that xarphloquaters exist. Therefore, xarphloquaters exist. QED )
God is associated with the emergence of the universe we can observe and, by extension, the emergence of us. Our universe has a definite beginning; our universe has not always been present.
Did the universe exist before it emerged? Obviously not since the universe has a definite beginning. The argument is that the universe must have existed in some form before its beginning. Therefore the God associated with the emergence of the universe must also have existed in some form before the beginning of the universe. And the God associated with the emergence of the universe may have retained the original form.
But the argument that the universe existed before it emerged also means that we cannot judge the existence of anything that is not present in what we observe as space and time. By removing the constraint of space and time it becomes impossible to claim nonexistence of anything that can be imagined. The argument that the universe existed before it emerged is not rational because it allows anything that can be imagined to exist.
No. Santa Claus is not present in space and time. The argument that existence is not limited by what we observe as space and time allows Santa Claus or anything else that can be imagined to exist. And Santa Claus can be rationally identified as 'IS NOT'; Santa Claus has not been present since the beginning of the universe and is not associated with the emergence of the universe. Santa Clause is not God.
I have rationally concluded that God 'IS'. But that does not necessarily mean that God exists. However, changing the meaning of existence also allows God to exist just as it allows Santa Claus to exist.
Space and time are observable, measurable quantities within our universe. Space and time are rational. Space and time determines what exists and what does not.
Existence is an emergent property of space and time. Without space and time it becomes impossible to differentiate between what exists and what does not exist. Without space and time existence becomes a leap of faith; existence becomes irrational.
That does not automatically mean god is the cause, much less god exists.
Our universe as we observe it had a beginning in the form of the Big Bang. That does not automatically preclude the universe (other universes) from existing before, or existing after this one.
That's just an assumption, with nothing to back it up.
No one is making such an argument. But our universe is constrained and observed within space-time. Whether a universe exists before or after (while an interesting thought experiment) would have no bearing on that.
The same applies to any argument that invokes god as a creator, cause, determinant, ect..
There's as much "evidence" for Santa as there is for god. but there is nothing to suggest one or the either actually exists or created/emerged with the universe. You can associate anything you want. That doesn't make the associated object the correct or rational explanation by default.
Define "god" then.
That's a contradictory statement.
That would be "existence" in imagination.
Without space and time, there is probably no existence.
Then your comment is incoherent to me.
Space and time (spacetime) exist and are thus an emergent property of existence itself.
Existence is the 'first cause'. If something is not OF existence it does not exist.
What then is the basis for your conclusion?
Hypothesis 1:
Energy and matter possess the quality of intrinsic stability. Astronomical observations that allow understanding the early universe is possible because of the intrinsic stability of energy. Atomic clocks allow accurate measure of time because of the intrinsic stability of atoms. Energy and matter coalesce into minerals (on the small scale) and into astronomical bodies (on the large scale) that possess the quality of intrinsic stability. Observations have shown the presence of black holes whose stability increases as they absorb matter and energy. Our observation of an expanding universe allows a rational deduction that the universe emerged from a singularity in the Big Bang. Empirical deduction concludes that a singularity would consist of a uniform state of energy that would possess the quality of infinite intrinsic stability.
The intrinsic stability of matter and energy at all scales can be altered by external influences introducing instability. Matter and energy can randomly interact to introduce instability; however, the external influence of random interaction result in random outcomes that return to the prior state of intrinsic stability. External influences overcoming intrinsic stability to obtain a specific outcome and maintain a state of instability would be an act of Creation.
The empirical conclusion is that overcoming the infinite intrinsic stability a singularity resulting in the Big Bang and emergence of the universe was a specific outcome that maintains a state of instability; the infinite intrinsic stability of the singularity was replaced by state of perpetual instability. The Big Bang was an act of Creation resulting from an external influence introducing instability to the singularity that became the universe and establishing a state of perpetual instability. Creation is a god-like quality; therefore, there is a God.
Hypothesis 2:
Energy and matter behave in a predetermined manner according to properties and regulating principles embedded in the universe. The forms and transformations of energy and matter present in the universe are the result of deterministic influences that do not require qualities of thought, knowledge, self determination, or self awareness (Reason, for brevity). Reason does not contribute to or enhance the deterministic behavior of the universe. Reason is an anomalous quality that is not explained by the properties and regulating principles of a deterministic universe. The deterministic properties and regulating principles of the universe do not describe Reason and do not provide a cause for emergence of Reason. Reason is a god like quality; therefore, God provides a cause for emergence of Reason. The rational conclusion using Reason is that there is a God.
First of all, this is presumption on your part. You have no idea of the nature of the singularity. Second, even if your speculation is correct, this would simply be evidence that a change of state occurred. That does not evidence a god. Deeming this state change a 'god-like quality' is simply declaring God by definition.
Reason might also be a consequence of life forms evolving brains capable of reason. A very helpful thing for survival. The presence of reason (and the assumption of determinism) does not evidence a god.
Refuting that God 'IS' would require refuting almost all of philosophy from antiquity to today. Life is an anomaly in a deterministic universe. The innate properties and regulating principles that predetermine the forms and transformations of energy and matter in the universe do not provide an understanding of life.
Philosophers of all ages have inevitably arrived at rational conclusions depending upon god-like qualities to explain the anomalous presence and behavior of life in a deterministic universe. Some philosophers attempted to avoid god-like qualities by concluding the presence and behavior of life is predetermined which has been refuted by empirical observation. Mathematics cannot provide an understanding of the anomalous quality of good/evil.
BTW, Ken Ham and Bill Nye are debating the veracity of the Bible. Both are basing their belief or disbelief on the veracity of the Bible. That is an irrational basis for belief/non-belief. Ken Ham and Bill Nye aren't saying anything about God or the existence of God.
Attempting to prove or disprove the Bible provides nothing informative concerning the anomalous presence of life in a deterministic universe. Life doesn't play by predetermined rules; life meddles with the orderly functioning of the universe. Life possesses god-like qualities that cannot be found elsewhere in the universe and cannot be explained by empirical observation of energy and matter. We may be able to create artificial intelligence but we cannot create an artificial human because physics and mathematics are inadequate. There will always be a need for 'then a miracle occurs'.
Who is talking about refuting 'God IS'? The opposite is at play. You are positing 'God IS' and I am asking you to back up your posit.
We do not know that our universe is deterministic. (I think it is, but we do not know this.)
True. Know someone suggesting mathematics can determine morality?
Well if the Bible were true (literally) that would most definitely say something profound about life. If the Bible were recognized as nothing more than the imaginative writings of ancient men that would help many from being distracted by ancient views and focus more on what we have discovered thus far. Not a final answer, but at least on the right track.
That rejects the idea of the scientific method based upon refutation of hypothesis. I have presented conclusions that God 'IS' arrived at logically.
Of course we do. Physics works.
Morality or the knowledge of good/evil is a god-like quality that cannot be rationally deduced from the deterministic properties or regulating principles of the universe. Morality is not an innate quality of energy and matter and cannot be deduced from empirical observation of energy and matter.
If everything written were literally true then the deterministic properties and regulating principles of the universe would explain the anomalous presence of life. The behavior of life being influenced by that which true and untrue leads to a rational conclusion that life is not regulated by deterministic properties or regulating principles innate in the universe. The Bible provides evidence that the behavior of life is not predetermined; life possesses qualities that behave differently than energy and matter.
How could a universe governed by rational predetermined properties and regulating principles innate to energy and matter give rise to the irrational behavior of life? A 'then a miracle occurs' explanation isn't any more rational than the Bible. Chemistry and physics can describe rational form arising from energy and matter but provides no insight into behavior contrary to the deterministic regulating principles that are causality for the behavior of energy and matter.
Then you have ignored my rebuttals.
That does not make the universe deterministic. Things appear deterministic at the macro level, but not so much when we go to the quantum level. We cannot claim that reality is deterministic. We can only claim that it appears to us as such.
Seems to me, morality is a function of culture.
Irrationality is not something that can arise from a deterministic reality?? (Taking your presumption of determinism as true for the moment.)
How do you know that what you perceive as non-deterministic behavior is not simply deterministic behavior that is too complex for you to understand?
Yes we do understand the nature of black holes and singularities; unless our science is incorrect. Of course we cannot directly observe either black holes or singularities. So our understanding is based upon deductive and inductive reasoning derived from observation.
But then we cannot observe the future, either. The future does not exist. Yet our Reason provides a means of describing the future. The ability to understand the future without having the ability observe the future is a type of omnipotence that is a god-like quality.
The spontaneous emergence or spontaneous generation of life, Reason, or anything else applies equally well to God. God does not need a creator, either. Yet the spontaneous generation of God does not preclude God being a creator.
The basis of the argument is that Reason developed and evolved by observing life. Life behaves quite differently than does energy and matter. Life is an anomalous presence in a universe made of energy and matter. Life itself is a god-like quality that is inconsistent the presence and behavior of energy and matter.
Claiming that God is the emergent result of life does not explain why life is present in a deterministic universe. That argument only replaces one god with another.
The mathematics breaks down into infinities. Science labels the part that it cannot explain as a 'singularity'. This is similar to science labeling dark energy and dark matter. There is quite strong evidence that these exist but science is (as of yet) unable to explain what these are.
Yes. That is correct. But when it comes to the nature of the singularity, science has no explanation.
God might exist. If so, God would be an emergent property of existence or God is existence itself. Also, of course, there may be no God. Declaring the existence of God is a baseless assertion.
Merely a subjective label with no factual aspects.
Given we do not know where anything comes from originally, all people can do is speculate. Some presume the grandest possible entity just IS (magic). Others note that existence itself IS. The former are speculating, the latter are observing. Given existence itself IS (demonstrably) one can now speculate that everything is simply a form of existence (a form consisting of the very substance of existence). We do not now what this substance is (it is clearly lower than particles) so I call it quintessential existence.
So one may speculate that quintessential existence has always BEEN and is the most primitive substance possible. That it interacts with itself without time constraints and what has emerged are forms that we call 'reality'. And if you must have a god who created the known universe that god would be a very complex form of quintessential existence that then, in turn, directed the creation of the known universe. Or, one might skip the god step and recognize the universe as an evolved form of quintessential existence.
Yes, infinite stability. We have observed the presence of black holes even though we cannot directly observe black holes. The physics of black holes are the same as for singularities. Does physics apply everywhere?
Stars have been observed to lose stability and undergo drastic changes. No one has observed a black hole losing stability.
The premise of that argument is that humans can only be aware of what exists. That is the prerequisite foundation for empirical philosophy (Aristotle (to a large extent), Locke, Hume, Berkeley). But if humans are only aware of what exists then any abstraction that can be imagined must exist. Empirical philosophy leads to a rational conclusion that God must exist since humans can only be aware of what exists (so must the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Philosophers tend to avoid that trap with a 'then a miracle occurs' argument.
Energy and matter would likely claim the perfect Energy of the Singularity as their God since that is the source of all energy and matter in the universe and is also the source of the deterministic properties and regulating principles that govern energy and matter. God Energy created the material universe in its own image and according to its own rules.
Life is an anomaly in the material universe that possess god-like qualities that allow obtaining and retaining knowledge, sensing and experiencing what exists, and thinking abstractly about what does not exist. God is the source of god-like qualities just as God Energy is the source of physics. The search is for the quintessential God. The Bible is a movie script that describes ancient human history; the Bible isn't really about the quintessential God. God in the Bible only provides a 'then a miracle occurs' way out of traps arising from incomplete (or incorrect) philosophy.
Nobody can prove irrefutably that there is a God, nor can anyone prove irrefutably there there isn't one. It can, however, provide comfort to someone close to death to believe that God and heaven do exist. What do I believe? At this point I really don't know what to believe, and frankly, I don't even think about it.
It depends on the religion if there is a heaven. Some religions seem to believe the reward is achieved when a person ceases to be ego driven to exist as a separate being from all existence.
The link below also describes Hell according to various religions.
Agreed.
But everyone has a position (including: I do not know what to believe). The question is:
What, if anything, would ever change your mind about the existence of God?
So in your case the question might be:
What, if anything, would convince you there is a God or convince you there is no God?
Not proof (that is too high of a bar) just being convinced to the point where you can comfortably state a reasoned conclusion of: this is what I believe ...
Well, if I saw an actual miracle happen it could convince me. If I won the mega-lottery it would qualify as a miracle and I would become a believer. LOL
You think the odds of that are bad ... the odds of winning the Publishers Clearing House are 1 in 6.2 BILLION!
Drugs, starvation, exhaustion, illnesses both physical and mental and other things like extended practiced meditation can all cause humans to experience visions, hallucinations or extremely vivid dreams which are all the natural products of our subconscious minds and which are often falsely self identifies as having been divinely influenced spiritual or religious experiences. Almost invariably those who suffer such hallucinations will attribute their delusions to whatever are their preconceived beliefs or "world views". The manifestations of mental illness no matter their impetuous tend to make those affected even more firmly entrenched in their existing delusional mindsets, faulty preconceived notions or irrational beliefs.
What, if anything, would ever change your mind about the existence of God?
He's gonna have to appear in front of me and ask "Any questions?"
When Mama gets to heaven she is, "Giving Olde Father Abraham The What For"...