How about a God that exists?

[Abdul Alhazred]

This is inspired by the "How about a God that is fair?" thread. Rather than hijack that thread I start a new one.

Any intelligent theist cosmology has to accommodate the fact of unfairness in the world, or more formally "the problem of evil".

The cosmic sugar daddy or Santa Claus for grownups are not intellectually respectable positions. But most theists are more sophisticated than that.

A God who really exists must be compatible with the observable universe.

Never mind the peculiar claims of specific religions, perhaps the universe was willed into existence.

This may be a testable hypothesis even though I am not clever enough to devise a test.

Assume that God does not care whether we believe, yet is not deliberately thwarting attempts to prove "His" existence. That puts the question outside Invisible Pink Unicorn territory.

Make no assumptions about whether God is good.

Any ideas how to test?

 

[triadboy]

Assume that God does not care whether we believe, yet is not deliberately thwarting attempts to prove "His" existence. That puts the question outside Invisible Pink Unicorn territory.

It still sounds like the Invisible Pink Unicorn territory to me, doesn't it?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Re: Re: How about a God that exists?

It still sounds like the Invisible Pink Unicorn territory to me, doesn't it?

Not if it's testable.

I'm definitely a strong atheist as a matter of plausible inference, but my own inability to devise a test does not equate to untestability.

I'm looking for a test. There may be one.

Anyone have any ideas how to test? Not a particular religion, just whether the universe was willed into existence.

 

[geni]

Compare our universe to a series of standard univers for with the diety status is know. In other words with current knowlage you can't.

 

[Gestahl]

Re: Re: Re: How about a God that exists?

Not if it's testable.

I'm definitely a strong atheist as a matter of plausible inference, but my own inability to devise a test does not equate to untestability.

I'm looking for a test. There may be one.

Anyone have any ideas how to test? Not a particular religion, just whether the universe was willed into existence.

You cannot prove the exisitence or non-existence of something outside of a system by using that system. If the Universe is the system, and God is not beholden to the laws of said system (or else he would part of the universe, and I find it hard to logically consider the creator/willer/etc that exists within the Universe), he cannot be analyzed. Even if he interacts with the system using its own laws (rules out miracles), you would not be able to distinguish between the universe just doing it, and the existance of a will behind it. I submit to you that musings about God are inherently un(veri/falsi)fiable.

 

[Benguin]

Which two of Omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence do you reject?

As they are fundamental to any Jewish/Christian/Islamic description of god (and probably others too) how do you defend the religion without all three being true?

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Re: Re: Re: How about a God that exists?

I'm looking for a test. There may be one.

Why? Just "because"?

• Maybe crop circles are cause by mixing Unicorn crap with Pixie dust. I'm looking for a test. There may be one.
• Maybe the Pyramids were built by Alien Aardvarks. I'm looking for a test. There may be one.
• Maybe ...

What a pathetic caricature of the scientific method!

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Re: How about a God that exists?

Why? Just "because"?

• Maybe crop circles are cause by mixing Unicorn crap with Pixie dust. I'm looking for a test. There may be one.
• Maybe the Pyramids were built by Alien Aardvarks. I'm looking for a test. There may be one.
• Maybe ...

What a pathetic caricature of the scientific method!

Not really. I have X theory I'm looking for a test for it is fairly standard. The things you suggest are no mare insane than some of the things that have been tested for. Some posible gods are indeed testerble and tests can be caried out. Others appear not to be but that is no reason to go by apearnces. Both your claims could be tested to a degree.

 

[triadboy]

Which two of Omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence do you reject?

As they are fundamental to any Jewish/Christian/Islamic description of god (and probably others too) how do you defend the religion without all three being true?

It's impossible because of the architecture of the belief.

The 'Desert God" religions you mention see God as a tribal god. He watches, judicates, blesses, and punishes His people.

Eastern religions see god as Omnipresent. This Omnipresence is also un-nameable. The unmentionable One.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Re: Re: Re: Re: How about a God that exists?

Why? Just "because"?

• Maybe crop circles are cause by mixing Unicorn crap with Pixie dust. I'm looking for a test. There may be one.
• Maybe the Pyramids were built by Alien Aardvarks. I'm looking for a test. There may be one.
• Maybe ...

What a pathetic caricature of the scientific method!

Don't be silly.

All you have mentioned have a definite explanation.

The universe, which had a definite beginning in time does not. Why should it exist at all?

I am an atheist, having rejected all religions, and I see no evidence for the existence of God.

Thus I assign a negligible probability to the existence of God. So I reject the proposition for all practical purposes.

But I have not tested it, and it may be a testable proposition, though I don't see how.

Anybody, believer or otherwise have some way to test? Or a reasoned argument why it is not possible to test?

 

[Benguin]

It's impossible because of the architecture of the belief.

Yes, but the claim is fundamental to those religions. I accept it doesn't apply to a heathen like me, but it doesn't seem to hold true for them either.

Most obviously, a benevolent and omniscient diety would never need to punish his own kind ... and yet this one apparently has and does on a regular basis.

 

[Martin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about a God that exists?

The universe, which had a definite beginning in time does not

May have had a definite beginning in time.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about a God that exists?

May have had a definite beginning in time.

Is that not the latest scientific understanding?

 

[geni]

It's impossible because of the architecture of the belief.

The 'Desert God" religions you mention see God as a tribal god. He watches, judicates, blesses, and punishes His people.

Eastern religions see god as Omnipresent. This Omnipresence is also un-nameable. The unmentionable One.

Where wold you fit the form of monothism developed by the Hitties?

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about a God that exists?

Not really. I have X theory I'm looking for a test for it is fairly standard.

The hell it is. In science, a theory is a testable description of observable events. What you are describing is speculation in search of justification.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Where wold you fit the form of monothism developed by the Hitties?

In your imagination.

 

[evildave]

If you want a test for your "god", define it. That's all you have to do: Define God.

If it's "definable", then we can trace back some of the definite properties and devise tests for them.

If it is "undefinable", then it's just nonsense.

Define God, and your tests will become obvious, or at least the usefulness of any tests becomes obvious.

Of course, every test I can think of comes out like the science of a "weather detector rock", a rock suspended from a string: If the rock is wet, it's raining. If it's moving, it's windy. If you can't see it, it's foggy, etc., etc.

For instance, you could say that a definite property of a god that people believe in is that the god does things in response to prayer.

TEST: You could pray to the god making it very clear that this is to finally prove to these unbelievers that your god should be prayed to. Pray fervently for a chair to move from the north end of the room to the opposite end. When the chair stays still, how do you interpret it? Do you get a crowd of people to pray? And then when it still doesn't move? If you get 500 people praying, and one joker gets up, walks over to the chair and moves it, what does that prove? Something about a thousand hands clasped in prayer?

The "Go ahead and strike me down if you don't like it, pussy!" test certainly doesn't seem to ever pass muster for any of them. Of course, it makes some people actually cringe and seek shelter. What's it prove? God has a sense of humor? Is tolerant? Didn't notice? Doesn't exist to notice?

The REAL challenge would be to define an unambiguous test that doesn't require active cooperation from a god that (by all accounts) tends to hide behind the other, other, other (...) other stone that's left unturned.

NAIL DOWN those defintions, and we can certainly demonstrate that a particular "god" isn't real. Then there's only tiny matter of the infinite variety of OTHER possible gods to prove aren't real.

Or we could simply leave the burden of proof exactly where it belongs: on the people who make the claim that there is/are god(s); especially ones that make specific demands of my paycheck, weekends and ballots.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about a God that exists?

Is that not the latest scientific understanding?

Correct. It isn't.

More specifically, time within this universe only goes back so far. But saying that it had a beginning in time requires positing some sort of external meta-time outside the universe in which the universe has a beginning. An interesting idea, but there's no evidence for it, and it would have to be a very different thing from time within the universe.