Classic Exchange on Existence of God, "Big Thinker" Deserves Big Reality

 


Originally Posted by bigthinker

I don't think you understand what evidence is.

Meta:

I understand that the atheist brain washers have created a standard of evidence that's designed to make belief look bad and to make you feel that atheism = scinece, when in fact it's really anti-scientific. thus when you have 200 empirical studies form peer reviewed journals telling you something you just decide they are all bad without reading one of them--horribly unscientific!

you don't know what evidence is. You have reduced all forms of evidence to just the ones that help your view. that's the big atheist trick with evdience and facts.

bigthinker

You have not presented evidence of the existence of God

Meta:
yea I have. you have not answered any of it. I showed three issues.


I beat the fu out of you on the 200 studies on the Cosmological arguemnt. you are just calmed up as though you said "I refuse to accept that this is meaningful. I will not bleieve regardless of the evidence."





   
bigthinker

The 200 studies deal with belief, not the existence of God. No one is questioning if people believe in God.

They don't deal with Belief they deal with experience. the experience of God. Of course that's what the argument is about so I don't base my argument on that premise. I'm arguing for the validity of the statement. They data from the studies suggest its' right.

bigthinker

You say that because your God is imaginary.
Is expecting gravity to hold you on earth an absurd level of evidence for gravity? 

Meta

you have made up that god is imaginary I disproved that nonsense slogan on several occasions. you just refused to look at the logic. The concept of God is that of a reality. So the concept is not imaginary like Superman is imaginary. We have a dispute about reality like any such dispute, such as wave particle, or steady state vs. big bang and so on.

the scientists who supported steady state did not call big bang "imaginary" just becuase they thought it was unreal. you are just using that term to make it sound worse.

bigthinker

The difference between sub atomic particles and your God is that sub atomic particles are objectively detectable; their presence or absence can be factually determined. Your God cannot.

Meta
they are not actually. that's why we don't have direct pictures of them. they are only detectable by judging their effects upon other particles and that's exactly the case with God.


bigthinker

Because there is no evidence that God exists any other way. And all the evidence (your studies, for example) indicate that God is imaginary. 

Meta

that's obviously an exaggerated statement. nothing about the 200 studies that makes God seem imaginary. The 200 studies make God seem real. So that's obviously a false statement. Since that's not the case then I do have evidence:

*200 studies

*can't get soemthing form nothing

*effect of God talk on the brain

*temporal beginning argument.


you can't answer any of them.

Of course not, you are blinded by your bias.

bigthinker

I say you are imagining it. But it doesn't matter because you can't demonstrate that you aren't merely imagining it. 

Meta

Yes, even Andrew Newberg says that the God n the brain stuff proves there is soemthing, it's not just imagination. the 200 studies prove because the effects are real and they are measurable.

you are just begging the question again.


bigthinker

First of all, I have zero evidence that your life changed -personal claims are not evidence.

Meta
yes they are evidence they are well documented the 200 studies document them. most of the 200 have some form of documentation that backs that arguemnt.

bigthinker

Second, there is no evidence that the cause of your change was God.
This is circular. 

Meta

as much evdience smoking causes cancer and it's of the same nature.
[this means it's a correlation but a tight one.]


bigthinker

Talk about God -or imagining God talking to you is not the same as the existence of God. You are confusing the two. 

Meta

I never said anything about God talking to me. I said explicitly mystical experience is not about God talking to you.


bigthinker

Show me a timeless void. 

Meta

you guys will never learn. you have to support the timeless void. the only alternative to that is eternal necessary being and that's God. If you don't accept a timeless void you already accept the basic conditions that prove God must exist.

bigthinker

It would require a greater re-write of the rules for your God to exist. 

Meta

it wouldn't require any becuase God doesn't exist by rules. God makes the rules he's not the result rules.

there are physical laws at that point (beyond singularity) to say no this or that. It's no good trying to say God doesn't measure up to the rules he doesn't have to.

bigthinker

its imaginary. There is no evidence that your god is not imaginary.

Meta
I just gave you some
Holy Question begging Batman! that's exactly what the word means. Perfect example!


bigthinker

Those aren't even arguments for the existence of God...They are examples of question begging and circular reasoning. 

He says that right after his own question begging where he demands that God is imaginary and taht I've given no evdience right after I game some.

Meta

prove it. show me they are. your arguemnts are always question begging. you show me how this is question begging.


bigthinker

Meta, I'm not insulted by your incorrect assertions and interpretations of reality.

Meta
I'm not trying to insult you. I do actually like you.

bigthinker

Except that God IS imaginary. You imagine God. 

Meta

prove it. so far you have not answered a single argument. again you don't understated what begging the question is. you are asserting that all the stuff I point to as evdience has to be not evdience because you assert the begging of the question. you are making your conclusion into your premise. that's circular reasoning. Question begging is a from of circular reasoning.

bigthinker

And you have zero evidence that God is not imaginary, in fact, all of your studies and all your so-called arguments support my position.

Meta

I don't have to prove Go dis not imaginary. you made the claim you must prove he is. I have no reasons to think he is. I have reason to think he's real and you can't answer them.


bigthinker
existence is not determined by argument, existence is determined by evidence.

Meta 

argument discloses truth. Discovering subatomic particles didn't make the particles happen because they argued for them. the arguments helped them make the discovery.


 Originally Posted by bigthinker

On the contrary, you are the one who denies the reality of God while I embrace it. God is an idea that you have. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Meta

you dont' even know what the idea of God is. It's not that of an imaginary anything. Its' of a real thing.. that's just proof that you are begging you can't even admit that we actually believe soemthing that we do believe.

my idea of the old South land life building that used to Grace the Dallas sky line is not that of an imaginary building it's the idea of real building that used to exit. It may still but you can't see it from a distance anymore. My idea of Superman is that of a being that I know is fictional. It's the idea of real being of cousre, but I know it's factional so the overarching idea of it is not that of a real being but of a fictional being. The immediate suspended disbelief idea is of a real super powered hero but the uber idea is that of a fictional character.


bigthinker

Your 200 studies don't deal with God, they deal with what people think.
The soul is imaginary. It doesn't have a cost beyond your emotional attachment to the idea.

Meta

sure, that's the co determinate. that's like saying 'these so called fingerprint things are not the actual fingers of the criminal they only represent places where the criminal touched, therefore, there is no criminal."



 Originally Posted by bigthinker

I admit that you believe something. I admit that you have an idea of God. What you do not seem to have is the God itself. And you don't acknowledge the difference between the thing and the idea of the thing.

Meta

Of course I do. you are begging the question. I see that the presence I feel when I pray and the doing of the effect when my prayers are answered; the doer of the deeds I speak of in my arguments. there has to be one. you just say "that can't be God because he's not real." that's begging the question.

bigthinker

You have a memory of something that actually existed. Your memory is the idea. The thing (the building) no longer exists -although it once existed. The existence of the building was not contingent upon your idea of it, it existed independently from your imagination and was objectively detectable by others -even by others who could not see it, didn't have an idea of it etc.

Meta

God is not contingent upon my idea of him. If he was I could not have been saved because I had no idea of God. I was an atheist.
see how he's begging the question? He's asserting that point that he defends in order to use it as evidence in its own defense. He assumes the idea of God is contingent upon my imagining it without even having a way to know that. Irony of ironies look what he says next!


bigthinker

How is that different from me knowing that your God is fictional?


Meta

you don't know it you are begging the question. I know God is real because I see the co-determinate.
(Duh!)

bigthinker

Superman is an idea, just as god is an idea. The building you remember may have actually existed -or perhaps it still does. The building existed as more than just an idea -whereas Superman and God exist only as ideas.

Meta

this obviously question begging. you dogmatically assert that God si in the category with superman. for me he's not. YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE THAT GOD IS JUST AN IDEA. YOU HAVE NO WAY TO KNOW THAT. YOU ASSUME IT, THAT'S QUESTION BEGGING! THAT'S WHAT QUESTION BEGGING IS!!!!
I couldn't make this more obvious if I invented it myself.


bigthinker

The difference is that fingerprints actually exist -they are (actual) evidence of a person. You are using imaginary evidence to support your belief in an imaginary character.


Meta

the effects of God exits. the effects of having the experiences, the experiences themselves. the temporal conditions in the temperate arguemnt all of hat stuff exits. the presence I feel exists it's real. It's something I feel.

bigthinker

Try to find real evidence -something other people can objectively investigate.

Meta

The God on the brain thing is objective. In Sagons movie why didn't they say "well there's a mathematical code in DNA that tells us how to open a worm hole but it cant' be alisen it's a coincidence?" Same deal. we have a signal written into our DNA when we hear God talk about brains light up. When we sense God's presence our lives are fixed up.

that' real it's objective. with the ability to distinguish between fake and real mystical experience the M scales gives us an objectivity in studying the effects of God.

What Does the "God Particle" Mean for God Talk?

We have all heard the news that the so called "God particle" has been found through a "atom smasher" and this confirms our basic view of the universe. This is the Higgs Boson particle that gives mass to the universe. Actually, it's only confirmed to be "a Higgs Boson," there are about five types it's too soon to say which type. The discoveries helps to anchor the basic theory now has prominence in big bang and sub atomic particles. Atheists are quick to jump on the bang wagon declare this a victory over religion. On the CARM board an atheist postor called "Jagella" says:
"God particle found" posts 5 and 10

5
Crock, the apparent discovery of the Higgs boson demonstrates that science, once again, is the way to know the world we live in. As we make such discoveries, we keep closing the gaps that some people put gods into. To maintain belief in whatever god you believe in, you often need to ignore or deny these kinds of scientific discoveries.

10
The Higg's boson also known as "the God particle" is a hypothetical subatomic particle that has been reported to have been recently discovered. Bosons are particles that carry forces such as the strong nuclear force. The Higg's boson reputedly gives mass to objects. Mass is a measure of inertia or the tendency of a body at rest to stay at rest or a body in motion to stay in motion.

So what might the discovery of the Higg's boson have to do with atheism? Well, I suppose that now we can safely say that no god gives mass to objects! Broadly speaking, the more we know about nature, as Carl Sagan has said, the less there is for God to do. Scientists are quickly closing the gaps that one god or other used to fit into to "explain" some aspect of nature. I predict that the Higgs boson will continue this trend, and a full, naturalistic explanation for existence will soon be available if it isn't already available.

Jagella

Now we can say safely that no god gives mass to objects? That conjures up the ancient view of God opening doors in the volt of heaven to pour water through into rain. I've always known that the atheist straw God was basally a big man in the sky but this is absurd. This "Jagella" person must be desperate to get God out of the picture. I guess if the wind blows form the West that totally disproves God. Or if moss grows on the north side of a tree this person rests easy form the fear of hell. The truth of it is this has nothing to do with God at all. Calling "God particle" hardly makes it a test of God's existence. It's still a problem to determine where the particle came from the basic set of laws and the whole set up that could produce a particle. That assumes that the real reason to believe in God is based upon the need to explain things. When will get it the point that the only thing scinece is going to tell us about God is the potential nature of the way he did things.

There are a couple of more important points to be made about the discovery. First we should notice the tenuous nature of the language used to describe it:

CBC News
7/4/12

"We can safely conclude something new is there. … All the evidence suggests it's the Higgs boson, but the results released today just aren't strong enough to conclude that it is the Higgs."

Sinervo said he expects the CERN research teams to have two to three times more data to analyse by the end of the year.

"Will we be able to conclude that it is the Higgs by the end of the year? It depends what you mean by 'conclude,' but we'll at least have some strong data," he said.

Does this mean they don't really know now? why does it have to be confirmed? Why can't they conclude it now?





National Geographic Daily News

Although preliminary, the results show a so-called five-sigma of significance, which means that there is only a one in a million chance that the Higgs-like signal the teams observed is a statistical fluke...

CERN head Heuer called today's announcement a "historic milestone" but cautioned that much work lies ahead as physicists attempt to confirm the newfound particle's identity and further probe its properties...

For example, though the teams are certain the new particle has the proper mass for the predicted Higgs boson, they still need to determine whether it behaves as the God particle is thought to behave—and therefore what its role in the creation and maintenance of the universe is...

A two-sigma finding translates to about a 95 percent chance that results are not due to a statistical fluke.

While that might seem impressive, it falls short of the stringent five-sigma level that high-energy physicists traditionally require for an official discovery. Five sigma means there's a less than one in a million probability that a finding is due to chance.

That all really sounds pretty uncertain.I'm not suggesting that we can't trust it. The point is they don't get a microscope that's really powerful and take a picture of the particle. They have not seen the particle itself. They smash atoms together and try to identify what comes out, the only way to do that is to judge by the effects it probably has upon larger particles. They can only do that by determining that what those particles are doing is indicative of it.

"The Higgs boson is the only one that remains undetected in experiments because it lives for only a tiny fraction of a second before decaying into other subatomic particles, such as photons, muons or leptons. The only way to measure it is to measure the products of its decay." (CBC News ibid)

It's the effect upon other practicals and its consistency with theory that tells them what's going on. I have said before that scinece doesn't prove (according to Popper) it only disproves or offers explainations. Those explaintions don't give us truth they give 'verisimilitude.' That's the appearance of truth through probability. That's what this is. No one is going to have a bunch of hoopla about verisimilitude. Can you see thee guys at CERN making a big deal out "We have verisimilitude!" Ho ray!

Another important aspect that this discovery holds for us in relation to real God concepts is this is another illustration of the concept of c0-detmerinate. I have previously illustrated the co-determinate through the relation between sub atomic particles and theory, by using the neutrino. In the same way neutrinos are not found directly but it is their effect upon other particles that indicate their presence. The co-determinate is like the relationship between the footprint in the snow and the foot that made it. The two always go together and one indicates the presence of the other. The relation between Higgs boson and other particles is another example of a co-determinate.

Of course the atheists all say "O but you are just assuming a relationship between experience and god you can't really prove it's there. The theroy of Higg's assumed a relatinoship before it could prove that boson was there. It's because the test meets the assumptions that we can assume it fulfills theoretical expectations and that is the predictive power of scinece. The thing applies in the co-determine in any issue. The theoretical relationship between divine and experience is there due to the place of the experince in the creation of religion. So then finding the experience and the effects it produces is just fulfillment theoretical expectations; meaning, scientific predictive power helps to demonstrate the rational warrant for belief.