How do you know God isn't dead?

[Statler Waldorf]

Step 1 Stat, pony up a god. Then I'll deal with all the bullshit in your post. No more freebies, no more inequitable exchanges.

You’ve already “ponied” Him up for me by asserting you believe in that which can only be true if Yahweh exists! It was so beautiful seeing you do my work for me! Thank you Rhythm.

[Ryantology]

In other words, can't pony up the god, huh?

[pocaracas]

Mega post hidden:

---

Had to go into notepad to write this... notepad doesn't have spell check, so... yeah... you may find some bugs.

Why do I assume it? Because every measurement seems to agree with it... of course, if the measuring instrument changes in the same way as the thing which is being measured, then the result will tend to be the same... and remember, your senses may be considered a measuring device.
In the end, it doesn't matter if they're all the same or not... our perception of them is what remains the same.

You’re not allowed to appeal to past experiences and trials in order to justify the principle (future trials will resemble past trials under the same conditions) because that would only be valid if the principle that is in question were actually true (the past trials of the principle will resemble future trials of the principle.) You’re on the horns of a dilemma, either you have to admit you believe something is true that only Christians can justify, or you have to admit that Science is impossible.

Dilemma?! no.

I assume (or, if you prefer, believe) that the universe is uniform. I assume it is that way because I have no reason whatsoever to even ponder that it isn't.
What makes it uniform? It's just the way it is.
Must there be something keeping the universe uniform?

You're the one making the assumption that a god is required for the universe to be uniform. You're the one that has to show this god, or show that the universe would not be uniform in the absence of said god. Can you do that?

Still messing up quotes, heh?

I am still batting a pretty good average old boy

And we're getting into another mega interlaced quote post sequence...

How do I know that? Wasn't it you who asserted it? I just went along with it, because it seems a reasonable assumption, taking in consideration my experience of my own senses and memory... ok, this last one is a bit dismal and I don't trust it too much... but it's amazing when it works well.

I asserted it because in a Christian Universe I have reasons to believe my senses are reliable, of course I doubt that you want to admit that we live in a Christian Universe, so you’ll have to provide your own reasons for holding this belief.

Like I said above, there's no reason to even consider the opposite. And computers work, satellites work, particle accelerators work... looks like things just work.
Do they really require your god to keep them working? I see no reason to think that. You present no reason to think that... just assert that god is required.
I do find it strange that you have come up with this notion in the past few posts, after all the evolution/radiometric dating/Universe history lesson we've had to teach you (and learn ourselves in the process).

I didn't say that we know how memory works... we just know it does work and use that fact to our advantage.

How do you know it works? I missed that one too.

yeah... I can't even remember what I had for dinner.... oh wait, I do remember!! it works! there, proved!
Now it's your turn, can you remember your name?

Awwww, isn't that cute...
Stat refuses to assume anything about reality, with the exception of what his mind was infused with at a young age... no matter how erroneous it may be.

You assume numerous things without justification; I merely assume one that would justify your assumptions.

You assume one thing that is just too big to miss, if it were true... but we do miss it, unless we accept a story told to us by other people. And there are other people who have similar stories, but, if we go by you, those are completely wrong. But, to me, both theirs and your story are too similar for me to accept one over another just because any person says so.

The christian god is your assumption. An assumption that has no backing whatsoever, except a very old book and other people who believe it too... and other people who have believed it and are now dead.

No backing? Have you not been paying attention? The fact that we can do science, we can learn about our world and Universe all backs up my assumption because it appears it’d be impossible if my assumption were not true (since you cannot even postulate a justification for the preconditions of scientific inquiry in a Godless Universe).

Yes I can, look: the universe is uniform, just because it is.
There. godless universe where all science is possible.
Still no backing for your position, just some vague assertions...

There are and have been people who believe/d in other gods... how does that work for those assumptions? "oh, they were the wrong assumptions, clearly... my assumptions is the one and only that has to be correct" you would say... or it would sound to me, from what you say.
This is exactly what Muslim Scholar says about his Allah... but let's leave that for the next quote...

I am not aware of any other claimed direct revelation from any other monotheistic god who cannot lie and promises to uphold his creation in a uniform and predictable manner and who desires for us to learn about him and his creation. It’s beginning to look like I have quite the uniqueness proof.

Look at what I bolded...
Claims... is what you have... it's what they have, too.
All, at least, second hand. Repeat after me: sounds mighty fishy!

Like Rhythm says, I'd like to see this tested and proved.

As you and Rhythm have helped demonstrate, the act of testing and proving presuppose this god exists because they rely upon assumptions that only make sense in this god’s Universe.

Still messing up quotes

And no we didn't. We just assume the universe is uniform because it is. We've never let your god into it.
How on earth did you come up with that argument for your god?

I was under the impression that electron repel each other because they all have what we've arbitrarily defined as negative charge... well, it wasn't so arbitrary... turns out it has to be negative, in order for mass to be positive... anyhow...
Equal electrical charges repel, because they cause the electrical field between them to curve outward. As they come closer, the field curves more.... curving a field takes energy, so it becomes increasingly "difficult" to bring equal charges close to each other.
It's not impossible, or nuclear fusion wouldn't happen... but that's for protons and neutrons, not electrons. Protons and neutrons are composed of 3 quarks each and these are governed by another force... somewhat stronger than electrical or magnetic.

You’re treating scientific laws as if they are normative, they are not; they are by definition descriptive. If we observed electrons suddenly behaving differently we’d have to adjust the formulation of our scientific laws to match the new behavior. What you’re saying is not unlike saying, “Well the coast has to look like that because the map says it does.” What you’re saying also in no way proves that such laws and models apply everywhere, always have, and always will- that’s an assumption that only makes sense of God exists.

Once more: it's an assumption that requires no god.
ad nauseam repetition seems to work in religious circles, ... maybe if I repeat this enough times, you'll pull through.

Allah is arabic for god.
Arabic derives, at least in part, from aramaic.
AaLaHaA (and some variations of it) is aramaic for god (accoring to these guys: http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi)

They are supposed to be the same... only the muslim god does not include your trinity thing, for it is an "evolution" of the jew god, where your Jesus is nothing more than another prophet.
In terms of power to create and control the Universe, your gods are precisely the same...
See how I can make sense of two different fiction novels which fork from an original one?

No they’re not the same at all. The laws of logic and morality derive directly from Yahweh’s character, while Allah is not bound by logic and morality does not derive from his character. Allah has made no promise to uphold his creation uniformly (the only promise found is in Genesis and Muslims do not believe that we have accurate translations of Genesis today so they cannot appeal to this verse). Muslims would run into the same issues you’re running into.

Well, you're going into some details I don't master... like I said: I want to see you and Muslim Scholar discussing those things. I'm not going to be a proxy between you two... just maybe a catalyst.

You are both creationists, so you can start with that common ground

Yup, Muslims are not completely wrong about everything.

Not all muslims are creationists.... just like christians... and jews...

Leaving aside that, what we have is repeatability; we know electrons and protons will behave the same way tomorrow as they do today is because they have behaved this way every day for as long as we've been able to observe and measure them, and the effects of their behavior has been consistent with this since the beginning of recorded history, barring the strange stories of the religious and superstitious.

Your justification is fallaciously circular, you cannot appeal to past trials of the principle and claim this proves the principle will apply in the future because that’s relying upon the very principle itself (that future trials will resemble past trials).

The past trials do provide a good level of confidence about future ones.

We don't know with certainty that they'll continue to act that way, but then again, nobody knows that. Nobody knows the future, even in your theology. Only god does, so when you say that you know electrons will continue to behave as they do because they were made by god, you're just wrong; for all you know, your god could have a good reason to upend all the laws of physics tomorrow. Do you know better than your god?

Bingo! Only God knows what He will do in the future, of course unless He has told us what He will do (Genesis 8), then of course we now know too. I know that the physical laws will be the same tomorrow as they were today.

Did that god tell us that?
Or was it invented by someone and written down to make it look like a god said it?
How can you discern the two possibilities?
Is there a third option?

Demonstrability and adjustment of belief with regards to experiential claims; I can demonstrate the things that I see, and that is proof of their reliability. I can show you my dog, and you'll see my dog. So will the next person I show, and the person after that, and so on. Now, there might be a few memory variations, but they will all have seen my dog, with his black and white fur. What we wouldn't see, is thirty thousand variations on what my dog looks like and does. If a person on the other side of the planet saw my dog, he would see my dog, and not a cat.

How do you know that I am seeing your dog? How do you know that the other person is seeing your dog? Are you not seeing us seeing your dog and hearing us telling you that we see your dog? The next day are you not remembering us doing this? You’re trying to use your senses and memory to prove your senses and memory are reliable enough to be used.

If these senses and memories seem to work for most people, then we have no reason to doubt them, as much as you seem to claim we should. Argumentum ad populum applied in a non-fallacious manner.... I hope!

Oh, and doesn't your god trick the senses a lot anyway? Give people visions, speak to them in their heads, stuff like that? What basis does a christian have to trust their senses, when either god or satan can influence them?

I am not aware of God tricking anyone or showing them something deceitful; you’ll have to be more specific.

Why are our bodies so susceptible to hallucinogens?
Why is it that some dreams feel real?
Our senses can be naturally tricked... and we may not be aware that they're being tricked. How would some one discern such trickery from one of these miracles?

God cannot lie,

How do you know this?

The truth is, if your god is literally real then you live in a world in which the physical laws of the universe can be, and have been in the past, altered and changed at the whims of another, who does things based on a perspective that is so vast and beyond our own that his actions can seem nonsensical.

The truth is that I have reasons for believing we live in a Universe that makes science and knowledge possible, you do not have any reasons, and yet you believe science and knowledge are possible. It’s like you’re assuming I am right, but then using that assumption to try and argue I am wrong, very interesting.

Again: there is no reason to consider the possibility that the Universe requires a god to keep it uniform.

---

[Esquilax]

Without being able to make predictions about the future by assuming trials in the past will resemble trials in the future under the same conditions, yes it’s impossible.

What's the alternative? Assuming every trial will be different from any other, despite not having any evidence that that has ever been the case?

Your justification is fallaciously circular, you cannot appeal to past trials of the principle and claim this proves the principle will apply in the future because that’s relying upon the very principle itself (that future trials will resemble past trials).

Except I'm not asserting knowledge, I'm asserting a reasonable expectation. We have never seen the laws of physics change from one test to the other, and if we have we've always uncovered a scientific explanation for that. It's not unreasonable to assume that something will continue to do a thing it has done since we began recording it, under the same environmental conditions.

Now, we don't know for certain what will happen in future, since absolute knowledge is near unattainable for most things, but what's to be gained from assuming that everything will change tomorrow, in the face of the available evidence? We aren't talking about knowledge, we're talking about certain- yes- assumptions that have been proven safe over time, and that we need to operate effectively.

That said, say we do wake up tomorrow to find that electrons are working in a new way; what happens then? Well, we find out why. We experiment, we work out what's changed, what the new limitations are, and why the change has occurred. Scientists love it when weird things happen, and the scientific method would still remain a viable method by which to find out why weird things are happening. We'd just need to feed it a new set of variables first.

Bingo! Only God knows what He will do in the future, of course unless He has told us what He will do (Genesis 8), then of course we now know too. I know that the physical laws will be the same tomorrow as they were today.

Depending on your interpretation of Genesis 8, and a bunch of other things too. You're operating under the same assumption we are, you're just feeding into it one more piece of information (your interpretation of Genesis) and using it to strengthen your assumption. But even if we were to accept that god will stick to the promise you think he's made and keep the laws of the universe consistent (I kind of read the passage differently, but that's sort of the problem anyway) there could be some facet of the universe as yet unknown to science that might one day cause our local physical laws to shift and fall away, while at the same time being completely consistent with the design god put into place.

Even if you're one hundred percent right, you're operating with limited knowledge, while god is not. His words could be true, he could just be taking into account things you couldn't possibly know about yet.

Satan is not a sovereign being, so he cannot change anything. Miracles (which are not necessarly violations of natural law) are by definition incredibly rare, so I can still obtain the scientific confidence required without worrying about miracles (especially considering people in the Bible were well aware they were witnessing a miracle). I’ll give you credit though, that was a rather philosophically astute point to bring up, it’s been used before. Kudos.

Well, thanks. Beyond that, you've hit the nail on the head too; yes the laws of the universe might change, but we can have confidence that they won't because, as you say, suspensions of them are rare, and upon seeing them we are aware that these things are exceptions to the norm.

How do you know that I am seeing your dog? How do you know that the other person is seeing your dog? Are you not seeing us seeing your dog and hearing us telling you that we see your dog? The next day are you not remembering us doing this? You’re trying to use your senses and memory to prove your senses and memory are reliable enough to be used.

That road leads to non-functionality. My senses are all I have, the sole measure by which I can perceive the world; yes, they could be entirely wrong, but what is the alternative to trusting them? This could all be in my head, but why would I assume that to be true, when everything I do experience tends to correspond to a physical world. Yes, there's no way of objectively proving that, but that's only because every last one of us is locked into a subjective view of the world from birth; it's more of a safe assumption.

I am not aware of God tricking anyone or showing them something deceitful; you’ll have to be more specific.

Well, burning bushes don't tend to speak, so I assume something was going on there. And it's not like god couldn't interfere with your senses in order to communicate with you, there's plenty of believers out there that would attest that this has happened to them. All I'm saying is, your senses aren't safe just because there's a god, you'd still be subject to illusions and hallucinations both divine and mundane, the only difference is that you'd have added a new source for them.

Wait, are you conceding that you cannot know anything about the World unless God exists and we therefore have reason to believe our senses accurately depict reality?

No, I'm saying we cannot know anything objectively to be true without assuming that our senses correspond to a physical universe, god or not. Yes, it's an assumption that we all make, but there is no alternative to it really. Even if there is a god, you and I could both be in a mental care home, hallucinating every moment of our lives; the senses are not trustworthy inherently, but on the other hand, they're all we have. Solipsism is a useless concept to operate under.

Absolute uniformity is not required by science, just general uniformity.

Which is true in a secular universe, too.

The truth is that I have reasons for believing we live in a Universe that makes science and knowledge possible, you do not have any reasons, and yet you believe science and knowledge are possible. It’s like you’re assuming I am right, but then using that assumption to try and argue I am wrong, very interesting.

Well, science and knowledge are demonstrable, that does help. It's a reason in and of itself; if I find myself looking at a scientific finding that can't be replicated, I have to ask myself why that is. You're right, I could be wrong about everything I've ever thought, but as of now I have no reason to think that I am, and I won't begin to seriously doubt unless additional information gives me a reason to.

However, a properly honest worldview always allows for such information to arise; we fit our assumptions to the facts, so that even if we're wrong, we're not wrong forever.