The God Delusion - TTLG Forums

Mingan on 16/1/2007 at 18:30

Quote Posted by fett

HERE'S an apple. HERE'S an orange. Both of these things are not like the other.

I'm not entirely sure what you're meaning there.

But to clarify; the 'outside' (if it exists) of this universe cannot be described in terms from inside, because natural laws are properties of this universe. ED: You probably could use our measuring units in this 'out there', though.

I fear that I'm misusing my words.

EDIT:
Oh god, what have I done again. I am aware that there are scientists currently researching for ways to discover stuff outside this universe; they might very well succeed. But what I want to say is that currently, the best working cosmological theory is that of th Big Bang. I am also aware of flaws within it, showing that something is amiss.

I presume that you would agree though that if there is such an outside, the physical laws might as well be different; otherwise how do we know if it's not just 'more' of this universe and not really the outside?

Quote Posted by paloalto

I know science relegates entities and demons to the dark ages but modern science nor psychology has cured mental illness except to administer a drug or routine to let the person cope with their affliction.This is not a bad thing as it is better to have a functioning person than not.Priests who have dealt with posession and the documented observed physical phenomena would probably argue for their existence.

Science found reasons for many mental illnesses, all of which didn't require the use of supernatural phenomenon. Sometimes it is chemical imbalances(that you can 'cure' with meds), sometimes it is a mis-wiring of neurons (think epilepsy; most times they can do surgery and remove the malfunctioning part), sometimes there are genetic malformations that can't yet be cured but there's research going on, and probably a host of other reasons that I don't know of because I'm no psychologist/psychiatrist/physician/anyone involved in these researches.

Thirith on 16/1/2007 at 18:39

Yet saying that, if there is a God, by definition his existence is metaphysical, i.e. beyond physics, and therefore can't be proven or disproven by science is a cheap copout? ;) (And yes, I'm aware that it's Stronts who made the latter statement. I think the point, cheap and glib as it may be, holds. :p)

Mingan: Dunno whether your edit is directed at me or fett or someone else. My point is simply this: Science itself doesn't allow for the categorical dismissal of the metaphysical - in fact, exploring it and its limits suggests certain metaphysical questions. Whether you call it metaphysics or religion (which could be described as an attempt at providing an explanatory narrative to metaphysics), both would seem to be what Stronts (and Dawkins, I'd imagine) calls superstition. Or does Dawkins allow for metaphysical issues?

fett on 16/1/2007 at 18:58

I meant what Thirth said. :D

SD on 16/1/2007 at 19:00

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

God only clashes with the laws of this physical universe if he's a being of this physical universe. Which, according to most faiths, he isn't.

He must interact with this physical universe, or how else could he answer prayers, impregnate other people's wives, burn his face onto bits of toast and cast down fire and brimstone from the heavens?

So what we're saying is that either (a) God is able to temporarily suspend the rules of the Universe in order to fiddle about with life on planet Earth, and to do so without anybody ever noticing, or (b) he doesn't exist.

So, simple Occam's razor; guess which one of those is more likely? That's why God is a scientific question - because he is entirely superfluous to everything we know and understand about this Universe. He complicates theories that don't require his presence to work. Theory of evolution by natural selection works great without God - why add him into the equation? The idea of God is as unnecessary to modern humanity as it is dangerous.

Mingan on 16/1/2007 at 19:05

Quote Posted by Thirith

Assumption: There is no outside of the Universe and God exist and is not bound to any of our dimensions. I fail to see how science could prove or disprove it.

Which part of the edit? I fucked around these paragraphs a bit too much for my taste.

Thirith on 16/1/2007 at 19:28

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

That's why God is a scientific question - because he is entirely superfluous to everything we know and understand about this Universe. He complicates theories that don't requre his presence to work. Theory of evolution by natural selection works great without God - why add him into the equation? The idea of God is as unnecessary to modern humanity as it is dangerous.

Because many people want their lives, their existence, to have meaning. They want to believe in ethics that go beyond "If I don't smash your face in, you don't smash my face in. Deal?". Science alone cannot do this. Metaphysics and religion are ways of addressing the question of meaning.

I'm not saying that I know God/religion to be the best way to go about this, but since I don't see science addressing this issue I think it's odd for science to try and *disprove* people's attempts to provide an explanatory narrative. As I said earlier in the thread, I do believe that we all have (and probably need) certain fictions to live by. It's what we do with these fictions that matters.

SD on 16/1/2007 at 19:34

I must say, your response is incredibly telling about the insecurities of the religious mind. Never mind the fact that your life has more meaning if you accept that it's not a dress rehearsal for Heaven.

Oh, and because it's the second time you've made this baseless claim, let me assure you that fictions are entirely unnecessary. In fact, I can think of nothing worse than deceiving myself that there was an afterlife just so I could feel all warm and fuzzy inside about dying.

Chimpy Chompy on 16/1/2007 at 19:38

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

He must interact with this physical universe, or how else could he answer prayers, impregnate other people's wives, burn his face onto bits of toast and cast down fire and brimstone from the heavens?

He must? Says who? If you're in argue-with-christian mode you won't get far with me, cos I'm not christian.

Maybe God speaks only in the hearts of men. Maybe he doesn't do anything at all, just watches the creation at work - the divine watchmaker.

Quote:

d00d if you want to talk about how bad things are done in the name of jesus, or how organised religion is a dangerous force, I'm quite willing to listen (and often in agreement). And if you want to argue god is superfluous, or unecessary, then again it's a valid argument.

I was specifically taking issue with your claims that science somehow disproves the existence of a god. Which it doesn't.

Gingerbread Man on 16/1/2007 at 19:39

I think what happened there was that the words "science" and "logic" got tangled up.

Thirith on 16/1/2007 at 19:39

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

And that's one of your problems in this thread. You project a number of (mainly literalist) assumptions of what religion is/means to people into the people who post opinions that differ from yours. You may want to consider the possibility that not everyone professing faith interprets religion the same way.

And, again, you don't address the points made. Why does the God fiction differ from the other fictions according to which we live our lives? Why is it wrong and evil and must be abolished when other fictions can persist? You haven't given me answers to those questions. (Unless you disagree that these fictions are there for everyone, in which case I think we don't have much of a basis on which to continue the discussion. In that case we'll simply disagree and learn nothing of interest or value about the other person's point of view.)