God & Falsifiability (discussion moved from other thread)

antiskeptic

Mickeroo wrote: »

If god exists in another dimension to us,then what has he got to do with us??

Consider our dimension to be a subset of the overall dimension - a subset of his dimension in other words. He has to do with us what any host has to do with a guest.

We're on his turf

antiskeptic

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I'm lost....

Does the same not apply to other religious texts?

Perhaps so. I was answering from the perspective of the evidence I have and why it is consistant only with the Christian God.

It's a hugely difficult subject to get to grips with. There is the whole 'no true scotsman' problem where we can't actually tell who is a believer according to the tenets of the faith and who is just "doing religion" because that's the way they were brought up.

pH

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the workings of the theorems or principles above but reading between the lines I'd suspect that God would have to be confined to the extent of logic as we know it in order for you to conclude as you do.

Agreed, if God isn't constrained by logic and mathematical rules then it doesn't apply. If you believe God can make a triangle with its angles summing to 200 or find a shorter path (on a plane) between 2 points than a straight line, then fine.

Which doesn't deal with the possible extent of logic in dimensions unknown to us. To illustrate:

A two-dimensional being is walking along a path in the middle of which sits an enormous, 100ft-to-a-side cube. From our friends perspective there is no way to continue - he's faced with a sheer wall 100ft high. His three dimensional pal has no problem however - the added dimension permits him to walk around the cube and continue his journey.

I don't see how any theorem - which cannot take account of the actual extent of dimensions to reality - can hope to support the notion "no God"

Many mathematicians and physicists have spent a lot of time studying the implications of multiple dimensions, and silly "Star trek" speculation aside, the existence of other dimensions would have no effect on the truth of the theorems and laws I posted above.

Mickeroo

pH wrote: »

Agreed, if God isn't constrained by logic and mathematical rules then it doesn't apply. If you believe God can make a triangle with its angles summing to 200 or find a shorter path (on a plane) between 2 points than a straight line, then fine.



Many mathematicians and physicists have spent a lot of time studying the implications of multiple dimensions, and silly "Star trek" speculation aside, the existence of other dimensions would have no effect on the truth of the theorems and laws I posted above.

Yea i saw a very basic model of why seperate dimensions could exist,something about everytime a quantum event occurs a new possibility is formed. They demonstrated how an atom can occupy two places at once,and the logic is since we consist of atoms then we should also occupy two places at once. They mentioned Shroedinger's cat too. It was actually in a documentary about Mark Everett from the band Eels trying to understand his father's work, his father being Hugh Everett III who came up with the theory in the first place. Really interesting stuff

axer

antiskeptic wrote: »

Consider our dimension to be a subset of the overall dimension - a subset of his dimension in other words. He has to do with us what any host has to do with a guest.

We're on his turf

You are only theorising all of this. You have absolutely no proof of any of it so why would you just assume it to be true then?

Mickeroo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Consider our dimension to be a subset of the overall dimension - a subset of his dimension in other words. He has to do with us what any host has to do with a guest.

We're on his turf

You seem to be making this stuff up as you go along

antiskeptic

pH wrote: »

Many mathematicians and physicists have spent a lot of time studying the implications of multiple dimensions, and silly "Star trek" speculation aside, the existence of other dimensions would have no effect on the truth of the theorems and laws I posted above.

How does a mathematician or physicist study the unfathomable-using-mathematical-tools? It's not silly speculation to posit dimensions unfathomable is it?

antiskeptic

Mickeroo wrote: »

You seem to be making this stuff up as you go along

Don't shoot the messager..

Mickeroo

antiskeptic wrote: »

How does a mathematician or physicist study the unfathomable-using-mathematical-tools? It's not silly speculation to posit dimensions unfathomable is it?

Because at the core of everything is mathematics and physics, you should read up on quantum mechanics

antiskeptic

axer wrote: »

You are only theorising all of this. You have absolutely no proof of any of it so why would you just assume it to be true then?

There's proving something (which involves demonstrating to others). Then there's knowing something yourself (which requires no proof). My knowing that God exists means I'm in a position to comment regarding our relative positions (us on his turf and subject to him).

I'm not attempting to prove anything to anyone. I'm just answering what he has to do with us.

Mickeroo

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's proving something (which involves demonstrating to others). Then there's knowing something yourself (which requires no proof). My knowing that God exists means I'm in a position to comment regarding our relative positions (us on his turf and subject to him).

I'm not attempting to prove anything to anyone. I'm just answering what he has to do with us.

Jesus? Is it really you?

antiskeptic

Mickeroo wrote: »

Because at the core of everything is mathematics and physics, you should read up on quantum mechanics

You should read up on tautology

antiskeptic

Mickeroo wrote: »

Jesus? Is it really you?

Nope..

Night..

pH

antiskeptic wrote: »

How does a mathematician or physicist study the unfathomable-using-mathematical-tools? It's not silly speculation to posit dimensions unfathomable is it?

Yes it is, if you want to indulge in silly speculation then don't try and dress it up in pseudo-mathematical language like "dimensions". You might as well posit fairies, or unicorns or extra colours. Extra dimensions would not a super-being make.

Mickeroo wrote:

Yea i saw a very basic model of why seperate dimensions could exist,something about everytime a quantum event occurs a new possibility is formed.

I wonder how the theists would get round that (if there was any real evidence it was true rather than some speculation). Imagine another dimension where Hitler was a real nice guy, does that mean that Hitler's souls goes to Heaven or Hell? Either we all have an infinite number of souls, or if we have just one, no matter how good *you* think you're being in this dimension there could easily be a serial-killer-you in another, sending you straight to hell!

CDfm

pH wrote: »

Yes it is, if you want to indulge in silly speculation then don't try and dress it up in pseudo-mathematical language like "dimensions". You might as well posit fairies, or unicorns or extra colours.

Now I get the whole fairies and unicorns. Its a Lord of the Rings thingy.

The dimension comment is the same as memes being pseudo science.

sink

CDfm wrote: »

Now I get the whole fairies and unicorns. Its a Lord of the Rings thingy.

The dimension comment is the same as memes being pseudo science.

I think I've pointed out to you before that memes are not pseudo science they are social science a different but related discipline to natural science with different methodology.

Just to comment on the whole dimension thingy, nobody has pointed out that what antiskeptic is talking about sounds more like parallel universes rather than alternate dimensions, a common error. Both parallel universes and alternate (hidden) dimensions are both scientific hypothesis which have yet to be properly scrutinised, they are far from pseudo science as they both have well developed mathematical theory's stemming from theoretical physics. Black holes and quantum mechanics were once in the same position. Although what antiskeptic is indulging in is pseudo science as he is not building hypothesis from mathematical theories but rather from his imagination.

antiskeptic

pH wrote: »

Yes it is, if you want to indulge in silly speculation then don't try and dress it up in pseudo-mathematical language like "dimensions". You might as well posit fairies, or unicorns or extra colours. Extra dimensions would not a super-being make.

But if you're speculating sill-ily over the nature what you can nothing about then why can't I. Unless your taking the a priori position of supposing to know about the nature of everything before you even discover it - in which case I'd be interested in your justification for that stance.

You say the mathematicians and physicist have included extra dimensions in their forecasts and conclude the theorems sound. How, in laymans terms did they model the nature of dimensions whose nature is unknown to them?

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

Although what antiskeptic is indulging in is pseudo science as he is not building hypothesis from mathematical theories but rather from his imagination.

My aim was to counter the claim that science/maths has more or less demonstrated "no God" by pointing out the fact that science/maths can't be supposed to be at the end of line when it comes to potential ingredients making up this cake in which we exist.

The claim is a claim from ignorance thus.

CDfm

antiskeptic wrote: »

My aim was to counter the claim that science/maths has more or less demonstrated "no God" by pointing out the fact that science/maths can't be supposed to be at the end of line when it comes to potential ingredients making up this cake in which we exist.

The claim is a claim from ignorance thus.

You might find it better to just accept that you cant win a God proof argument on natural science and never will.

You are dealing with heathenists after all.:D

You can agree to differ on the physical proof and God essence etc and thats allowed.

The thread is A+A so agnostics post on issues too.You also will get posters who will explain science issues to you and will sort out theory from rants and hyperbole for you. For example - I asked questions on science and research stuff and got an email from a very senior medical research guy with video links on research methods and ethics.

antiskeptic

CDfm wrote: »

You might find it better to just accept that you cant win a God proof argument on natural science and never will.

Hiya

I'm not trying to win a God proof argument - given that I accept that the only person who can prove God to anyone is God himself. What I tend to work towards is stalemating objections. For instance, countering the claim that maths/science has (or could) disprove God merely neutralises that objection - it doesn't add a whiff of proof for God.

The thread is A+A so agnostics post on issues too.You also will get posters who will explain science issues to you and will sort out theory from rants and hyperbole for you. For example - I asked questions on science and research stuff and got an email from a very senior medical research guy with video links on research methods and ethics.

I'll bear it in mind. Cheers!

CDfm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll bear it in mind. Cheers!

That as a Believer they are going to slag you off you need to accept as an auto da fe which we all know is Portugeese for an act of faith.

Ah (sentimental tear on cheek) - the good old days when heathens knew their place:D

antiskeptic

CDfm wrote: »

That as a Believer they are going to slag you off you need to accept as an auto da fe which we all know is Portugeese for an act of faith.

I don't need to rely on faith in this instance. I've all the empirical evidence I need that slagging might well be the order of the day. Grist to the apologists mill really..

Ah (sentimental tear on cheek) - the good old days when heathens knew their place:D

Wasn't that the bad old days when the parish priest was as good as god-incarnate? Better now to have Gods enemies out in the open where the gospel can pick 'em off at will and turn them into Gods sons.

CDfm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Wasn't that the bad old days when the parish priest was as good as god-incarnate? Better now to have Gods enemies out in the open where the gospel can pick 'em off at will and turn them into Gods sons.

I hope the irony wasnt lost on you and Im Catholic.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/burning.html

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Wasn't that the bad old days when the parish priest was as good as god-incarnate? Better now to have Gods enemies out in the open where the gospel can pick 'em off at will and turn them into Gods sons.

Well good luck with that.

antiskeptic

CDfm wrote: »

I hope the irony wasnt lost on you .

Ahh! Urg

and Im Catholic

Notwithstanding the fact you're a Catholic, you wouldn't want to go back to those days again - would you?

antiskeptic

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well good luck with that.

Thanks..

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

Ah (sentimental tear on cheek) - the good old days when heathens knew their place:D

Says the catholic on the A&A forum.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

Says the catholic on the A&A forum.

H+H (Heathens & Heretics) Forum (blubs ) Now I'm just being sentimental.

CDfm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ahh! Urg

I saw you edited to avoid giving the wrong impression-so I will give you my 10 cents.

I sometimes post when someone is mistaken on theology - the same points will come up in the Christianity forum and most posters actually like having their facts correct as some posters will have religion as a hobby.You may not convert anyone.

Others, have an interest in the philosophy of religion(my interest) and some others in ethics because of their professions or occupation.If you have an interest in that you might be very surprised at the detail in the discussions and how conservative some posters actually are.

nkay1985

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not trying to win a God proof argument - given that I accept that the only person who can prove God to anyone is God himself.

Given that you believe that the only person who can prove God to anyone is God himself. Believe, not accept.