Absolute undeniable evidence for existence of God?

[genkaus]

It's suggested that he understands things that we do not, but precisely what that is is left unsaid. Pretty much anything to do with a god is on the "Q continuum"..lol. He's omnipotent (or a liar, or both)...lol - being my favorite bit of what may be unintentional parody. A sort of distilled Q'ish exchange. They or he even comes from a place that we "lesser beings" could not comprehend, and so it is shown to us in a way that we might (very limited). Hell, the fucker even spawns a son - and does battle against a malevolent entity that pretends to be/desires to be a god.

I think the gist of the Q bit (if I may be so bold Kim) is that what we might accept as evidence for christopagan god would fit a character imagined within a sci-fi universe just as well.

So, what I am getting is that this Q character does not meet the criteria of sufficient evidence to distinguish him from dimply being an advanced alien. Well, that makes it pretty simple, doesn't it?

[Neo-Scholastic]

However, you, your friend, and all the other people who saw the movie at the same time as you may all have different opinions, ideas, feelings etc about/from the movie, the fact is that everyone can independently verify the existence of said movie.

Reality is our movie. From the evidence of our senses and the force of our intellect we draw our own conclusions. That's all.

---

We assume that this natural world works in a specific way and its workings can be understood as natural and logical laws, such as cause and effect...l we can tell from a word like supernatural is that it transcends at least some of the natural laws.

Or serves as both the source and support of natural laws. Transcendent principles need not override or contradict natural order. From my perspective, the fact that the physical universe follows natural laws and does not fall into absurdity serves as ample justification for the belief in deity.

For all you SF fans out there, OMNI published a Greg Bear story titled "Petra" about how the rules of reality started to unravel following the dead of God.

[popeyespappy]

From my perspective, the fact that the physical universe follows natural laws and does not fall into absurdity serves as ample justification for the belief in deity.

Really Chad, argument from personal incredulity?

[Minimalist]

does not fall into absurdity

Absurdity...



is never very far away.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Really Chad, argument from personal incredulity?

Not so much incredulity as a recognition that reality has an intelligible order that, in my opinion, confirms Providential governance.

The only real difference between an atheistic interpretation of natural law and a theistic one is this. For the atheist, lawful order is inherent to the physical universe for no particular reason; it just is. For the theist, lawful order is intentionally imposed on the physical universe by a rational intellect. I prefer thinking that things are the way they are for a reason and that inspires great curiosity to ponder those reasons more fully. Saying that something "just is" puts an end to inquiry.

It seems to me the better opinion to hold is the one that encourages the pursuit of knowledge rather than the one that stops it at some arbitrary limit.

[bennyboy]

Really Chad, argument from personal incredulity?

Not so much incredulity as a recognition that reality has an intelligible order that, in my opinion, confirms Providential governance.

The only real difference between an atheistic interpretation of natural law and a theistic one is this. For the atheist, lawful order is inherent to the physical universe for no particular reason; it just is. For the theist, lawful order is intentionally imposed on the physical universe by a rational intellect. I prefer thinking that things are the way they are for a reason and that inspires great curiosity to ponder those reasons more fully. Saying that something "just is" puts an end to inquiry.

It seems to me the better opinion to hold is the one that encourages the pursuit of knowledge rather than the one that stops it at some arbitrary limit.

So the atheistic (read: physical monist) outlook limits inquiry, as opposed to your religious outlook, which stimulates and encourages it?

Methinks you're wixing your mords there, friend.

[genkaus]

Or serves as both the source and support of natural laws. Transcendent principles need not override or contradict natural order. From my perspective, the fact that the physical universe follows natural laws and does not fall into absurdity serves as ample justification for the belief in deity.

Its risky to bandy about concepts without fully understanding their implications. As i said before, and you did not disagree - natural laws are descriptions of how reality works. Reality is the source and support of natural laws. So, from your perspective, if the transcendent principles are to be the source and support of natural laws, then that would require the hypothetical supernatural to be the source and support of reality. Ignoring for the moment that this position has absolutely no justification for it, for the supernatural to be identified as distinct and transcendent to the natural and not just an unknown extension of it, it would have to work in a manner that reality doesn't. If the transcendent principle are actually going to be transcendent to the natural laws, then the object of their description must behave differently than nature. And any description of this different behavior (supernatural law) would necessarily contradict or override the natural law.

The second thing you do not understand is the basis of concepts like order, chaos or absurdity. As I said, nature works in a particular way, we observe how it works and then we come up with natural laws to describe it. The concepts of order and absurdity come after this. If something works according to natural laws, then we regard it as orderly and if it goes against them, we call it absurd. Those concepts are based on our perception. If what you regard as "falling into absurdity" right now was actually how the physical universe behaved, then that would become a part of the natural laws and would no longer be considered absurd. The findings of quantum mechanics would be a good example here. Intuitively, we found the results as absurd because they seem to go against the known laws of nature. However, since we found out that nature does behave in that manner, we expanded th elaws of nature to accommodate those findings.

[Ryantology]

Really Chad, argument from personal incredulity?

Not so much incredulity as a recognition that reality has an intelligible order that, in my opinion, confirms Providential governance.

The only real difference between an atheistic interpretation of natural law and a theistic one is this. For the atheist, lawful order is inherent to the physical universe for no particular reason; it just is. For the theist, lawful order is intentionally imposed on the physical universe by a rational intellect.

For no reason. He just does.

I prefer thinking that things are the way they are for a reason and that inspires great curiosity to ponder those reasons more fully. Saying that something "just is" puts an end to inquiry.

Saying "it is like this because it suits my preferences regarding what I want it to be". And it's a "just is" statement to boot.

It seems to me the better opinion to hold is the one that encourages the pursuit of knowledge rather than the one that stops it at some arbitrary limit.

Which is precisely why "God did it" is the worse opinion. God is the only arbitrary limit in this entire scenario.

[genkaus]

Not so much incredulity as a recognition that reality has an intelligible order that, in my opinion, confirms Providential governance.

It doesn't.

The only real difference between an atheistic interpretation of natural law and a theistic one is this. For the atheist, lawful order is inherent to the physical universe for no particular reason; it just is. For the theist, lawful order is intentionally imposed on the physical universe by a rational intellect.

That would be putting the cart before the horse. Natural laws are descriptions of how the universe works, not prescriptions of how it should work. I do not regard "lawful order of the universe" as its inherent feature. In fact, I regard the concept as redundant. The lawful order isn't imposed on the universe. The universe doesn't conform to any particular external standard. It simply acts in the manner it does and that manner - whatever it may be - is regarded as the "lawful order". And this is one of the reasons why theistic interpretation is ridiculous - assuming the existence of an independent standard externally imposed simply disregards the basis of that standards existence.

I prefer thinking that things are the way they are for a reason and that inspires great curiosity to ponder those reasons more fully. Saying that something "just is" puts an end to inquiry.

It seems to me the better opinion to hold is the one that encourages the pursuit of knowledge rather than the one that stops it at some arbitrary limit.

Understanding the basis of natural laws - i.e. acknowledging that those laws derive from how the universe works, but not determine it - is not the end of inquiry. Rather, it guides the inquiry into the correct direction. Given this knowledge, we can then say that we do not know why the universe works in a particular manner and then proceed to find out.

Here's how the theistic interpretation puts a stop to the inquiry. What you seem to instinctively understand is that any set of "laws" require an intellect to conceive them. If those laws are descriptions of the universe, then human intellect is sufficient to account for their existence. However, if those laws hold primacy over the universe and the universe has to conform to them, then you'd assume the existence of an entity superior to the universe and then that would be sufficient to explain their existence. And once that is done, both avenues of inquiry (why the universe works the way it does and what is the basis of natural laws) have been satisfied and put to a stop. Whereas, in atheistic interpretation, one of them remains open.

[NoraBrimstone]

If God(s) existed there would be some kind of undeniable evidence.

But they don't, so there isn't.