The most important unresolved scientific questions, in my opinion.

[ZenMode]

One cannot.



None whatever.

What does that have to do with you blindly guessing there are none?



But the question is not "IS IT POSSIBLE THERE IS LIFE ON ANY OF THOSE PLANETS?" Of course it is possible.

The question is, "IS THERE LIFE ON ANY OF THOSE PLANETS?"

The only reason you are having so much trouble with this "god" issue, Zen...is because you, like the many theists with whom I discuss this, HAVE ALREADY MADE A BLIND GUESS ON THE ISSUE...AND YOU JUST WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUR BLIND GUESS MAY BE WRONG. (Or, like the theists, will not acknowledge that it may be wrong without qualifying in an illogical way, that your blind guess is much more likely than the opposite blind guess.)

It is silly. You are too intelligent not to see that it is silly.

We do not know if any gods exist...and there is no way (at this time/maybe never) to be able to determine if there are any or if there are none. We also are not able (logically, scientifically, or mathematically) to determine which is more likely to be the case.

It really is easy.

How do you define/describe a "god" that we are talking about in this discussion?

 

[Ross Dolan]

How do you define/describe a "god" that we are talking about in this discussion?

If you read my replies, you will see that I have already done that...very specifically. At my post #298,

I'll repeat it here:

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

 

[ZenMode]

If you read my replies, you will see that I have already done that...very specifically. At my post #298,

I'll repeat it here:

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Ok. We're talk about an entity that exists somewhere outside of our current universe and this entity has the ability to create matter/anti-matter? We should also probably assume that this entity, unless it was created by a different "God" has existed for ever, right?

 

[Ross Dolan]

Ok. We're talk about an entity that exists somewhere outside of our current universe and this entity has the ability to create matter/anti-matter? We should also probably assume that this entity, unless it was created by a different "God" has existed for ever, right?

Don't make any such assumption, Zen.

If a "creator god" exists...it is as much a part of our "current universe" as apple pie.

It may not be a part of what we humans call "the universe"...but the universe may be more than what we humans call "the universe."

Let me repeat (rephrase) that last part, because it is important. "THE UNIVERSE" (meaning all/everything that exists whether we humans know it or not) may be a thing VASTLY greater than what we humans (or at least the scientists among us)...call "the universe."

We humans tend to think of ourselves as MUCH, MUCH more than we very likely are. There may be entities in this universe that would consider us much the way we consider ants in the backyard. And this thing we humans call "the universe" may be but a speck in THE UNIVERSE.

To suppose we humans can understand (or even fathom) how creator gods could exist and create in concurrent or linear fashion is presumptuous.

Best if folk like you simply acknowledge that we do not KNOW if gods exist...but that your guess is that none do.

At some point, after we work out what you feel is defective about my thinking so far, we will transition to a discussion of how best to combat the intrusions into our (those of us who are not theistic) lives by people who are theistic and feel we all must live by a code dictated by their blind guesses about the things that offend the gods they blindly guess exist.

 

[ZenMode]

Don't make any such assumption, Zen.

If a "creator god" exists...it is as much a part of our "current universe" as apple pie.

It may not be a part of what we humans call "the universe"...but the universe may be more than what we humans call "the universe."

Let me repeat (rephrase) that last part, because it is important. "THE UNIVERSE" (meaning all/everything that exists whether we humans know it or not) may be a thing VASTLY greater than what we humans (or at least the scientists among us)...call "the universe."

We humans tend to think of ourselves as MUCH, MUCH more than we very likely are. There may be entities in this universe that would consider us much the way we consider ants in the backyard. And this thing we humans call "the universe" may be but a speck in THE UNIVERSE.

To suppose we humans can understand (or even fathom) how creator gods could exist and create in concurrent or linear fashion is presumptuous.

Best if folk like you simply acknowledge that we do not KNOW if gods exist...but that your guess is that none do.

At some point, after we work out what you feel is defective about my thinking so far, we will transition to a discussion of how best to combat the intrusions into our (those of us who are not theistic) lives by people who are theistic and feel we all must live by a code dictated by their blind guesses about the things that offend the gods they blindly guess exist.

Would you agree that a God couldn't create a universe if he didn't exist outside of that universe? In other words, a construction worker can't live within a house that he hasn't built. He has to exist outside of that house in order to build it.

However, for the sake of not dragging this out, and in a universe where really nothing can be absolutely proven to be impossible, it is technically impossible to rule out the existence of gods.

However, When you truly think about what it would mean for an entity to exist outside of our universe, as it would have to if it was the creator of the universe, and you consider the high improbability that such a being exists that could basically wiggle his nose and create matter/antimatter, I truly don't see how you can see that existence being equally possible and impossible, but that's just an opinion.

 

[Hume]

Don't make any such assumption, Zen.

If a "creator god" exists...it is as much a part of our "current universe" as apple pie.

It may not be a part of what we humans call "the universe"...but the universe may be more than what we humans call "the universe."

Let me repeat (rephrase) that last part, because it is important. "THE UNIVERSE" (meaning all/everything that exists whether we humans know it or not) may be a thing VASTLY greater than what we humans (or at least the scientists among us)...call "the universe."

We humans tend to think of ourselves as MUCH, MUCH more than we very likely are. There may be entities in this universe that would consider us much the way we consider ants in the backyard. And this thing we humans call "the universe" may be but a speck in THE UNIVERSE.

To suppose we humans can understand (or even fathom) how creator gods could exist and create in concurrent or linear fashion is presumptuous.

Best if folk like you simply acknowledge that we do not KNOW if gods exist...but that your guess is that none do.

At some point, after we work out what you feel is defective about my thinking so far, we will transition to a discussion of how best to combat the intrusions into our (those of us who are not theistic) lives by people who are theistic and feel we all must live by a code dictated by their blind guesses about the things that offend the gods they blindly guess exist.

Blind guess.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Would you agree that a God couldn't create a universe if he didn't exist outside of that universe?

No.

In other words, a construction worker can't live within a house that he hasn't built. He has to exist outside of that house in order to build it.

I would not agree no matter what a construction worker could do.

I would not make any guesses about how a god would create...or what would have to be in order for a god to do it.

However, for the sake of not dragging this out, and in a universe where really nothing can be absolutely proven to be impossible, it is technically impossible to rule out the existence of gods.

Yes, it is.

However, When you truly think about what it would mean for an entity to exist outside of our universe, as it would have to if it was the creator of the universe, and you consider the high improbability that such a being exists that could basically wiggle his nose and create matter/antimatter, I truly don't see how you can see that existence being equally possible and impossible, but that's just an opinion.

You certainly are entitled to that opinion.

This all started when you wrote, "There are no gods"...and I asked, "How do you know that?"

I have no problem with opinions, Zen. As you can see, I have lots myself.

 

[Hume]

No.


I would not agree no matter what a construction worker could do.

I would not make any guesses about how a god would create...or what would have to be in order for a god to do it.


Yes, it is.

You certainly are entitled to that opinion.

This all started when you wrote, "There are no gods"...and I asked, "How do you know that?"

I have no problem with opinions, Zen. As you can see, I have lots myself.

Blind guess.

 

[Into the Night]

There's no evidence to support the existence of gods.

Yes there is. I've already listed some of it.

Things happen like the universe existing

Not a "happening". The Universe is not a verb.

and Trump being alive because he turned his head.

What about it?

Just because people want to attribute those things to gods doesn't make them evidence for their existence.

It is evidence of their existence. You cannot make it otherwise, Void.

 

[Cypress]

How do you define/describe a "god" that we are talking about in this discussion?

A rational agency, a purposeful organizing principle, a transcendent lawgiver underlying the reality of the universe.

 

[Hume]

A rational agency, a purposeful organizing principle, a transcendent lawgiver underlying the reality of the universe.

Zenmode does not believe in agency. Everything obeys abstract laws.

 

[Into the Night]

If you want to discuss the existence/non-existence of leprechauns...

No, YOU DO!

start a thread on that subject.

No need for me to start a thread for you.

I guarantee there will be participants...including me. I have defined what I mean by "a god"...and I would expect you to define what you mean by "a leprechaun." It will not be as clear-cut as you seem to suppose.

So you think there are leprechauns. Well, there IS evidence of them.

There also is no evidence that this thing we humans call "the universe" was not created by a god entity.

How do you know the universe was created at all? If a god or gods created the universe, it isn't the universe. Your paradox is YOUR problem.

BOTTOM LINE: If you are saying that the odds of existence/non-existence favor the side of non-existence...SHOW ME YOUR MATH.

I am not saying either way. YOU ARE.

Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX.

You are suggesting there is a mathematical solution to the problem...a probability equation. SHOW ME YOUR MATH...and we can discuss it.

I am suggesting no such thing. DON'T TRY TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

It is my contention that one cannot (at this moment) determine if any gods exist...or if the existence of gods is more or less likely than the non-existence of gods using science, logic, reason, or math.

Take reason out of the list and we agree.

Reason is not a proof, but it is the presentation of arguments.

 

[Into the Night]

I asked you to explain it in your own words, and the way you explained it doesn't make sense, because the observable universe has been experimentally determined to be flat geometrically.

Three dimensions is not 'flat', Sybil.

 

[Cypress]

Zenmode does not believe in agency. Everything obeys abstract laws.

Oh yeah, that's true.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, you are not arguing against what I've stated.

It IS what you stated. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Straw man fallacy.



Straw man Fallacy.

Fallacy fallacies.

You are attempting to describe an 'expanding universe'. That presupposes it has a boundary and you know how to observe it.

What an ignorant statement.

Cosmological observations are mostly based on mathematics.

Mathematics is not an observation. Redefinition fallacy.

Light - the behavior of light as it travels the cosmos.

Then say "light". Don't try to couch it in buzzwords.

This is our time machine, it allows us to see into the past.

Light is not time. Redefinition fallacy.

What about them?

Do you choose to ignore the universe. Gotit.

What religion?

The Church of the Big Bang.

As with everyone who went to college in the 1970's I have accepted the Big Bang as the explanation for the behavior we observe through mathematics of our Universe.

Mathematics is not an observation nor a universe. Redefinition fallacy.

Now we have new evidence and new theories.

Such as?

That's how science works.

You are discussing no theory of science.

Those who refuse to entertain new ideas are dogmatic and hence religious.

Dogma is not religion. Redefinition fallacy. You are religious. You are a fundamentalist. You are trying to prove your religion True.

 

[Into the Night]

No.

Then you are locked in paradox. If a universe does not exist, how can a god or gods exist outside of what is being created, and not be outside of what is being created???!? Hmmmmmm?

I would not agree no matter what a construction worker could do.

You think a construction worker can live in a building that doesn't exist?????!?

I would not make any guesses about how a god would create...or what would have to be in order for a god to do it.

You are locked in paradox. This is not about guessing anything. You are being irrational.

Yes, it is.

You certainly are entitled to that opinion.

This all started when you wrote, "There are no gods"...and I asked, "How do you know that?"

I have no problem with opinions, Zen. As you can see, I have lots myself.

A paradox is not an opinion. It is two conflicting arguments. There is only one way to clear a paradox, and that is to utterly discard one of the conflicting arguments.

 

[Into the Night]

A rational agency, a purposeful organizing principle, a transcendent lawgiver underlying the reality of the universe.

A paradox is not rational, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

If you read my replies, you will see that I have already done that...very specifically. At my post #298,

I'll repeat it here:

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

 

[IBDaMann]

Consciousness does not emerge.

How do you sugest it comes about?

First, there are two people, a mother and a father, i.e. two consciousnesses. They create a child. At some point, a third consciousness emerges. Oooops, oh wait, they don't emerge, I forgot.

How does that third consciousness emerge without emerging?

 

[IBDaMann]

So you agree that it's equally likely that the earth is billions of years old as it is likely that it's about 6,000 years old?

Despite being mathematically incompetent, you return once again to assigning bogus positions of probability to others (in this case, to Into the Night).

Into the Night's accurate statement, i.e. that no one knows the age of the universe, is not a statement of any probabilitites. If you weren't mathematically incompetent, you'd be aware of this, and you wouldn't be frequently using bad math to justify your belief in physics violations.