Is there a god/Allah/Supreme being?

[Jinx]

spandexx said:

Lots of interesting things... >> Edited by spandexx on Sunday 11th July 13:26

Are humans the only species to have religion? Just because we lack the ability to communicate with other species does not negate their abilities. It was not so long ago that animals were not considered capable of feeling pain - or that animals do not have sex for pleasure. My own inability to detect or understand does not negate somethings existence.

"Belief is there to satisy personal pschological desires" - surely belief is essential to negate the conculsions of Descartes, you believe in your memories, you believe your senses. Belief is a fundamental part or the learning experience. Extending that belief to believe in things that have less tangible results is surely less likely to happen and yet has appeared in "so many communucative human cultures".

As to what is science - a method of explaining the things around us and within us using agreed upon and (sometimes) reproducable principles. I have not refuted science but often what we observe is not what is happening (observer effect anyone). Knowing how little we know is an important step to true understanding and wisdom.

"Unfortunately you have not been a witness to a Godly act" - I am in no position to judge whether or not this is true, I was not there - "strength and advantage out survive the weak and disadvantaged and evolution marches ahead." - erm no.
The organisms most likely to survive are those best suited to the environment, those that are more adaptable are more likely to survive a changing environment. I am not convinced by random mutations giving individuals an advantage which they then breed into the gene pool, - I am more convinced that the environment (by that I mean the entire system an organism exists within) effects all organisms at the bassist level and as an environment changes a subsequent change at the DNA level occurs. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

[spandexx]

Jinx said:

Are humans the only species to have religion? Just because we lack the ability to communicate with other species does not negate their abilities. It was not so long ago that animals were not considered capable of feeling pain - or that animals do not have sex for pleasure. My own inability to detect or understand does not negate somethings existence.

A construct of a belief system that can be regarded as a religion is a little different and slightly more complex than automatic synaptic responses such as pain or orgasm. There is a slight distinction between these, one is an unconscious autonomous reaction to stimuli whilst the other shows great intelligence, imagination and the ability to coerce ones thoughts into a cognitive construct with meaning, structure and a value system, usually built on the foundations of language.

Jinx said:

"Belief is there to satisy personal pschological desires" - surely belief is essential to negate the conculsions of Descartes, you believe in your memories, you believe your senses. Belief is a fundamental part or the learning experience. Extending that belief to believe in things that have less tangible results is surely less likely to happen and yet has appeared in "so many communucative human cultures".

You extend belief to encompass what most people would call fact. Your level of argument, though intriguing in a philosophical sense has no real merit when being used in this context. We are debating the relevance of belief in the intangible; the embodiment in this case is a Supreme Being. Debating whether the keyboard I am typing at is real or just a figment of my perception of reality is not valid or relevant.
I think we can all presume that when I mean belief when used in the context of all of my arguments (including the quote from my text that you have used out of context) I mean belief in the thread title, i.e. a supreme being and all related paraphernalia.

Jinx said:

As to what is science - a method of explaining the things around us and within us using agreed upon and (sometimes) reproducable principles. I have not refuted science but often what we observe is not what is happening (observer effect anyone). Knowing how little we know is an important step to true understanding and wisdom.

I fully agree, science is but a description and is subject to change - but that is its simple beauty and, conclusively, its power over religion. Science is nothing and it is everything; including your theories on perception and your devotion to the writings of Descartes, the human condition, any possible discoveries of a higher power and all of religion. Science is not the opposing team or the enemy, science simply is a fallible human observation with a basis in evidence, agreed factual furtherment and understanding.

Jinx said:

"Unfortunately you have not been a witness to a Godly act" - I am in no position to judge whether or not this is true, I was not there...

No, you were not there but lets look at this with cold, scientific eyes using a basic mathematical principal of probability: was he in fact, out of all the possible trillions upon trillions of organisms in this universe, individually chosen to be a witness to God, to be the sole recipient of a communication with the one non-evidential supposed creator of man, our world and the universe around us, or was he having dream / an LSD flashback / or simply lying to preserve his fragile mental hold on his belief (as in my context). Probability will always point at the simplest and most likely possibility. I will admit there is a slim chance that he is in fact the missing link between Earth and god, a kind of spiritual Nokia 6210 as it were, but I think God made a bad choice, not that many people read Pistonheads.

Jinx said:

- "strength and advantage out survive the weak and disadvantaged and evolution marches ahead." - erm no. The organisms most likely to survive are those best suited to the environment, those that are more adaptable are more likely to survive a changing environment. I am not convinced by random mutations giving individuals an advantage which they then breed into the gene pool, - I am more convinced that the environment (by that I mean the entire system an organism exists within) effects all organisms at the bassist level and as an environment changes a subsequent change at the DNA level occurs. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Yep, I was paraphrasing our good man Darwin to make a point. If you wanted me to write the whole theory of evolution then you may have missed the point but, OK, I am sorry, it was not a perfect rendition of Darwin’s theory.
You are mainly correct in what you are saying but it is the very mutations that help the organisms adapt into their environment that helps them get the advantage. The environment itself cannot make changes at the sexual and / or cellular level, the imperfections in nature do that (i.e. mutations; and by mutations I don't mean they grow a third arm you know).


>> Edited by spandexx on Monday 12th July 14:10

[Jinx]

spandexx said:

A construct of a belief system that can be regarded as a religion is a little different and slightly more complex than automatic synaptic responses such as pain or orgasm..... You extend belief to encompass what most people would call fact.... No, you were not there but lets look at this with cold, scientific eyes using a basic mathematical principal of probability: ... The environment itself cannot make changes at the sexual and / or cellular level, the imperfections in nature do that (i.e. mutations; and by mutations I don't mean they grow a third arm you know)... >> Edited by spandexx on Monday 12th July 14:10

My first example was to indicate that our understanding of the interactions and abilities of our animal cousins was flawed before and we may find in the future that what we envisioned as simple behaviours and stimulus response was something far more complex.

Belief is what we use to make sense of the world, if we hurt ourselves by playing with fire we believe that playing with fire will burn us if we do it again. That so many cultures have created a belief of something not so immediately tangible and repeatable perhaps lends more credence to its existence?

I have already discussed probability and luck before - but on those terms, in an infinite universe are not all probabilites one? But seriously though, a personal revelation is often less of a miricle than the odds against such a thing happening.

Oh and I think you'll find that the environment does effect at the genetic level (ultra violet light, magnetic nuances etc.) at least it is more plausible than spontaneuous mutation theory.
"Imperfections" - I would not use this word to describe anything in nature, I get the feeling our understanding of "perfect" is a little shortsighted.

[spandexx]

Jinx said:

My first example was to indicate that our understanding of the interactions and abilities of our animal cousins was flawed before and we may find in the future that what we envisioned as simple behaviours and stimulus response was something far more complex.

So you are dismissing (current) scientific fact to blunder your way through that point. Yes more needs to be understood etc, etc, but before making such sweeping comment and insinuating that animals do in fact have complex religious beliefs I think you should understand the subject matter with a little more depth.

Jinx said:

Belief is what we use to make sense of the world, if we hurt ourselves by playing with fire we believe that playing with fire will burn us if we do it again. That so many cultures have created a belief of something not so immediately tangible and repeatable perhaps lends more credence to its existence?

So you base your belief on the notion that loads of other people believe it so it must be true? It also seems you ignore what I suggested; that it is an inevitable human trait due to the way humans think, backed up with simple evidence etc, etc, therefore it would be scientifically unusual to find a culture without a belief system such as this - especially ill educated, scared and primitive cultures.
You also do not make a clear distinction between what you mean by belief and your concept of science – you bang on about everything being belief and then later argue with seeming scientific facts with the conviction of a scholar defending his radical theories; basically contradicting yourself. I your eyes everything is belief but you example above demonstrates exactly my point that science and belief are different things: Let me explain; we KNOW playing with fire will burn us because it will burn us EVERY time we stick our hand into flame. No argument, no silly stories of monks who can survive running over hot coals etc, it is KNOWN scientific fact. But a cultural acceptance (note I did not say ‘Knowledge’) in something intangible such as a Supreme Being is belief as it has no testable basis in fact or any evidence to back it up.

Jinx said:

I have already discussed probability and luck before - but on those terms, in an infinite universe are not all probabilites one?

Ah; you are using the flowery notion of 'everything is possible', but you forget the probability that everything is possible is so infinitely small that we can dismiss it as not possible.

Jinx said:

But seriously though, a personal revelation is often less of a miricle than the odds against such a thing happening.

Therefore, using the principals of probability the high likelihood is, in all fairness, that it is a load of bollocks - for want of a better word.

Jinx said:

Oh and I think you'll find that the environment does effect at the genetic level (ultra violet light, magnetic nuances etc.) at least it is more plausible than spontaneuous mutation theory. "Imperfections" - I would not use this word to describe anything in nature, I get the feeling our understanding of "perfect" is a little shortsighted.

So I am no evolution expert (I hold my hands up), still does not mean it is not going on around us at all times and your dismissal of the principals of DNA and mutation (I doubt it is spontaneous) is your opinion, with no basis in scientific fact. I think your lack of understanding on the subject is apparent (even to me who is, by all means, no expert on the subject) by what you say in your posts.

You seem to have this mindset that holds dear many flawed and poorly thought out theories, such as your concept of belief, the Supreme Being, your obvious high regard of animal intellect and you thoughts on evolution. I am willing to change my views and alter my understanding with evidence and proof. You seem to be on the back foot defending the holes in your argument at all times and not presenting any proof. Essential that is why all religious debate rages on. The religious sector refuse to look at evidence and alter their perceptions where as that very notion is the principal of science. This pig headedness is not useful in debate as it gets stuck in a rut.

[Jinx]

spandexx said:

So you are dismissing (current) scientific fact to blunder your way through that point. Yes more needs to be understood etc, etc, but before making such sweeping comment and insinuating that animals do in fact have complex religious beliefs I think you should understand the subject matter with a little more depth.

“Once more into the breach”…

I have dismissed nothing as yet, merely indicated that what had been scientific fact has since been dismissed and what we determine as scientific fact at the moment may subsequently be dismissed.

spandexx said:

So you base your belief on the notion that loads of other people believe it so it must be true?

No, as yet I have yet to discuss my beliefs – we have to agree on the precepts of understanding before we can discuss evidence. I was only using your example to indicate that may be it supports the supreme conjecture not negates it.

spandexx said:

It also seems you ignore what I suggested; that it is an inevitable human trait due to the way humans think, backed up with simple evidence etc, etc, therefore it would be scientifically unusual to find a culture without a belief system such as this - especially ill educated, scared and primitive cultures.

I did not ignore your “inevitable human trait” I dismissed it out of hand – inevitability is not a word behavioural scientists would use in the growth of society and I side with that body of research.

spandexx said:

You also do not make a clear distinction between what you mean by belief and your concept of science – you bang on about everything being belief and then later argue with seeming scientific facts with the conviction of a scholar defending his radical theories; basically contradicting yourself.

I am trying to show that science and belief are not dissimilar concepts. There have been numerous scientific experiments (especially at the sub atomic particle level) which has shown that the “belief” of those conducting the experiments has had a significant effect on the results (I am using belief in its pure form – not belief in a religious context).

spandexx said:

I your eyes everything is belief but you example above demonstrates exactly my point that science and belief are different things: Let me explain; we KNOW playing with fire will burn us because it will burn us EVERY time we stick our hand into flame. No argument, no silly stories of monks who can survive running over hot coals etc, it is KNOWN scientific fact. But a cultural acceptance (note I did not say ‘Knowledge’) in something intangible such as a Supreme Being is belief as it has no testable basis in fact or any evidence to back it up.

That is where a difficulty lies – would you believe a mathematical formula proving the existence of a supreme being? Would you believe twenty men in white coats who have identified the existence of a supreme being using the latest super string theory and a particle accelerator? Is it a paper published in Nature which, after deciphering the DNA off all creatures, identified an encoded message that said “made by God – no user serviceable parts inside”? Ultimately, what we believe as fact tends to be what we want to believe or what we fear to believe.

spandexx said:

Ah; you are using the flowery notion of 'everything is possible', but you forget the probability that everything is possible is so infinitely small that we can dismiss it as not possible.

But infinitely small done an infinite times equals at least once.

spandexx said:

Therefore, using the principals of probability the high likelihood is, in all fairness, that it is a load of bollocks - for want of a better word.

You begun the probability argument- I would like to state though that unless you know of all the acting forces within a system you cannot know the probabilities of any given outcome – it might be a forgone conclusion for all you know.

spandexx said:

So I am no evolution expert (I hold my hands up), still does not mean it is not going on around us at all times and your dismissal of the principals of DNA and mutation (I doubt it is spontaneous) is your opinion, with no basis in scientific fact. I think your lack of understanding on the subject is apparent (even to me who is, by all means, no expert on the subject) by what you say in your posts. You seem to have this mindset that holds dear many flawed and poorly thought out theories, such as your concept of belief, the Supreme Being, your obvious high regard of animal intellect and you thoughts on evolution. I am willing to change my views and alter my understanding with evidence and proof. You seem to be on the back foot defending the holes in your argument at all times and not presenting any proof. Essential that is why all religious debate rages on. The religious sector refuse to look at evidence and alter their perceptions where as that very notion is the principal of science. This pig headedness is not useful in debate as it gets stuck in a rut.

I have not dismissed DNA and mutation; I just do not hold with the Darwinian random mutation, as what is often perceived as spontaneous is often the result of forces and interactions we have yet to discover (theory of spontaneous creation held sway until more observations were made).

I have an enquiring mindset that allows me to ask even the difficult questions. I do not hold to a dogma I question everything and anything but not to the point of inaction – pragmatism always holds sway in all I do. I have yet to consider pointing to any proof, as until the preconceived structures of reality are allowed to be questioned we cannot agree on any precepts for the argument of proof.
I did not say that animals have a religion, just suggested that it was premature to say they have not (we cannot communicate in a meaningful way). My regard of animal intellect is not particularly high, then again neither is my regard of human intellect – when you create the scale and the tests that prove you are the best the result is meaningless. (The IQ test is a good example of this – it was used to prove that immigrants to America in the thirties were “sub”- normal and only useful for manual labour, yet the IQ test used was culturally biased).
[/quote]

[spandexx]

Sorry, not dead yet, one last gasp… (much to the dismay of everyone else)

I will not go through each point individually because saying the same thing in a cyclic argument does get tedious; but let me say this; your very first comment is in contradiction with all that you preach: “I have dismissed nothing as yet…” then you go on to say; “I question everything and anything…” You seem to want to dismiss EVERYTHING and argue about it weather the argument holds relevance in the original debate or not.
I am in full agreement that science ‘fact’ is not strictly fact in the purest sense of the word and that everything scientific is subject to change; we are both in full agreement on that point – I even called this very aspect the beauty of science somewhere in this thread, so labouring on the fallibility of science is doing your argument no good.
What you do seem to not grasp, though, is the use and importance of current scientific knowledge and the fact that it is pretty damn accurate – note I did not say perfect, I said accurate.
The premise of all your arguments is that there can be no such thing as ‘evidence’ as such, as some form of belief is always required for all perception, including the perception of evidence. This I kind of agree with, but the concept has no value as it concludes nothing. Again, using your example, I am sure that if your hand was forcibly held over flame you would quickly discard your concept of belief and replace it with the concept of fact as your skin blisters and starts to bloody hurt. It is an example of something we can be pretty bloody sure of; in fact so close to 100% sure that we call it ‘fact’.
You seem to compare the fringes of theoretical string theory physics with animal psychology, mathematical probability and evolution. Three of these are sciences we are pretty sure about as the sheer volume of evidence for them is overwhelming, such as the smouldering hand evidence above. One is theoretical, hard to test and on the boundaries of our most wild understanding; this is why it has yet to be agreed on conclusively and why it cannot be compared to established science or even called ‘fact’.
Also your other comparisons leave a little to be desired; to compare the racist discriminations of members of the same species with the supposed intelligence of all animals is putting the argument out of context and ignoring evidence to an insulting level.
And yes, eventually a mathematical formula could be created, using evidence around us, to prove the existence of a supreme being, but this is speculation; nothing more, and as such, with no basis in scientific fact (see definition above) I cannot include it in my ‘belief system’. I do, though, want to ask the question “why do people include it in their belief system?” and the above posts try to explain that. You don’t have to agree with what I say, but I am basing my arguments on scientific constants, basic knowledge of human behaviour and using the simple fact that we are not that important in the grand scheme of things and to promote ourselves to the discoverers of the creator of all things is a little silly to be honest.
As for your ‘facts’ (can you see the irony) I don’t see any references to actual evidence. Somehow I doubt there is a hidden message in DNA, if it is in an article in Nature then it must have been the April issue.

[rickbrown74]

[FourWheelDrift]

God has decided he has had enough of all the "does he exist, doesn't he exist" and is taking an extended break in Jamaica on his private yacht 'The Saucy Sue' with the England Cricket Eleven and the Balinese Goddess of plenty. Please leave all messages with Mr Kevin DeVille on - 01 666 666

[ultimasimon]

FourWheelDrift said:

God has decided he has had enough of all the "does he exist, doesn't he exist" and is taking an extended break in Jamaica on his private yacht 'The Saucy Sue' with the England Cricket Eleven and the Balinese Goddess of plenty. Please leave all messages with Mr Kevin DeVille on - 01 666 666

I've tried that number mate and it doesn't work

[Jinx]

Just to annoy everyone....

My apologies to spandexx, when I said “what had been scientific fact has since been dismissed” I was referring to history and such scientific facts as: Force equals movement, no force therefore no movement (Scientific “fact” until Newton came along), others such as the atom being the smallest particle of which all matter is made and that electricity flows from positive to negative.
The “facts” I stated were facetious – I was trying to provide examples of what you would possibly consider as “evidence” and as you have indicated a mathematical proof is of no use to you.
The principles of combustion, entropy and enthalpy, I agree are well established “facts” reproducible within our limited environment, but if we wish to discuss the “supreme being” should we not be looking at the extremes of existence and understanding?

To prove a supreme being (or any sort of being for all that) exists……

All proofs are based on experience, all experiences are (fundamentally) based on belief, and therefore all proofs are based on beliefs. To prove a supreme being exists to you, you either need a belief in a supreme being, or to experience a supreme being.

[spandexx]

We could keep this going for weeks ('till we get sin binned for life).

[FourWheelDrift]

Proof God exists



God recently spotted incognito in Chingford.

[Buffalo]

Nah that's father christmas mate!

[lunarscope]

juk said:

Hear about the Dyslexic, Agnostic , Insomniac? Used to lie awake at night wondering if there really was a dog.

He had better belive it or he'll be sentenced to eternal Dalmatian in Hull.

[TheExcession]

Jinx said:

All proofs are based on experience, all experiences are (fundamentally) based on belief, and therefore all proofs are based on beliefs. To prove a supreme being exists to you, you either need a belief in a supreme being, or to experience a supreme being.

Interesting thread this.

There is another view to some of this. I remember asking a Buddhist scholar once if 'Believing was seeing or seeing was believing?' After a moments thought he respeonded with 'They are both wrong, realising is knowing.'

This statement to me sums up the whole 'supreme being' debate, and in fact many other debates, free will vs determinism, the old what is conciousness paradigm, life after death.

Many of these topics exist in a place outside of the bounds of our 'understanding' and therefore to address them within the constraints of a language precludes any abillity to reach a reasoned conclusion.

To me the belief in a God or supreme being is as you say, entirely down to personal experience. Whether that comes from programming by your parents and society or through a direct experience.

However, I don't believe it is possible or will it ever be to prove from a 'scientific' point of view the existence of God.

Science has never been interested in God, and indeed has spent a good deal of its life trying to distance itself from the Church. There were times when its very existence depended upon this.

But what I've found following this thread is that no one seems to have taken the time to define what they mean by a God or Supreme Being.

Maybe we could start again defining the purpose and reason for the existence of such an entity.

best
Ex

[GasBlaster]

It doesn't matter whether god exists, what matters is what effect god existing might have on us. This can be calculated logically. There are only two possibilities:

1. If you believe god exists, and you are wrong, you lose nothing.

2. if you believe god doesn't exist, and you are wrong, you are f**cked!

[ultimasimon]

GasBlaster said:

It doesn't matter whether god exists, what matters is what effect god existing might have on us. This can be calculated logically. There are only two possibilities: 1. If you believe god exists, and you are wrong, you lose nothing. 2. if you believe god doesn't exist, and you are wrong, you are f**cked!

3. Your f*ucked either way as God or no God, your still going to die - and that IS the only thing we know for sure.

The only thing which seems to be immortal is this bloody thread

[juk]

lunarscope said:

juk said: Hear about the Dyslexic, Agnostic , Insomniac? Used to lie awake at night wondering if there really was a dog. He had better belive it or he'll be sentenced to eternal Dalmatian in Hull.

I'll revise my religious beliefs in line with that.

(wonder what sort of dog tho'?)

[Einion Yrth]

GasBlaster said:

It doesn't matter whether god exists, what matters is what effect god existing might have on us. This can be calculated logically. There are only two possibilities: 1. If you believe god exists, and you are wrong, you lose nothing. 2. if you believe god doesn't exist, and you are wrong, you are f**cked!

Ah... Pascal's wager again.

Consider, there are many religions, many claim to be the 'one true faith', all rely on faith, there is no proof, it is therefore impossible to know who is correct (assuming that any one is), therefore there is every likelihood that you will choose incorrectly.
It follows that you are probably f**ked anyway, so I'll stick with Occam's razor and that suggests to me that there is no god.

[GasBlaster]

Occam's razor?