Mosques

[Limewater]

To clarify, before I am accused of misrepresentation, there are some subtleties in Judaism regarding typing on the computer.

There are no subtleties. As long as you're not typing in Hebrew you're free to go hog-wild.

This is not an entirely uncontroversial point.

I simply wrote that the practice is common, not that it is Law.

[crux]

The topic is deviating, but I just caught up, so I will respond all the same.

Someone brought up a comparison to suicide bombings and kamikaze attacks. It should be mentioned, then, that Japan was deeply entrenched in Shintoism in the 1940's. In particular, Emperor worship was stressed and ingrained into the youth around this period.

"The fact is that innumerable soldiers, sailors and pilots were determined to die, to become eirei, that is ‘guardian spirits’ of the country. [...] Many Japanese felt that to be enshrined at Yasukuni was a special honour because the Emperor twice a year visited the shrine to pay homage. Yasukuni is the only shrine, deifying common men, which the Emperor would visit to pay his respects"

The Japanese youth worshiped the Emperor as they would a deity, so the analogy doesn't have complete merit. There are other example what would make for a better analogy, of course, but I thought to clarify.

As for that argument, I agree with Jrecee in so far as it's absolutely incontrovertible that religion can act as an enabler for wrongdoings. As such, without religion, those wrongdoings would not be as likely to manifest themselves. That said, I do not believe that Jrecee or anyone else is able to properly judge the ramifications of a world without religion. To say that the world would be a better place without religion is a tenuous argument and should only be made with evidence to support such a claim. Billions of people are religious - to eradicate that religion would most certainly have unforeseen consequences.

People don't necessarily believe in God because they read about him in a book (though that could be the case), God is inferred because as far as we can tell, it is necessary for him to exist. Returning to the origin of the universe, the things we understand about science make life as we know it impossible to exist. We cannot see an effect like the expansion and origin of the universe without a cause. If matter and energy cannot be created, then there is no logical way that they can exist. If there is empirical evidence to support that the cell theory is correct in inferring that all cells must come from preexisting cells, then it is not unreasonable to assume that there must be something that we don't understand beyond physics and biology. The basic idea is that while an atheist infers nothing (at this time, at least), a religious person infers God, or in other words an all encompassing and immutable force that constructed reality as we understand it.

The idea of "before G_d created anything" is pretty silly, imo. If you assume that G_d created the universe, then asking that is like asking what Charles Dickens did to the left of page one of Oliver Twist.

It's interesting that you're both arguing for the same thing (the need for a deity), yet have opposing view points as to the necessity. In either case, by arguing for a deity, you're allowing that deity to break all scientific models in existence. If this deity is necessary to break the constraints of science, why is the deity the only entity capable of breaking such constraints? You're both fully admitting, inherently, that something has to be capable of ignoring the laws of the universe - in both of your cases an omnipotent deity - but the question that remains is why does that force have to be a god? What evidence or observations do we have that omnipotence is required? What evidence suggests that there must be a time when matter came into existence, but that time before a deity came into existence is irrelevant?

That's what the scientific model tries to ascertain. The hypothetico-deductive model not only requires observations and theories, but it requires predictions and collaboration. That's a major problem with the Big Bang Theory, String Theory, and macro evolution, to be sure - there's no current method to test those theories, and thus no chance for collaboration (though some strides are being made towards explaining the Big Bang theory, which I'll get to, and micro evolution has long since been proven). Creationism, on the other hand, isn't even based on empirical observations. It's based on an observation no more empirical than "we are, therefor if we exist, a god must exist." Evolution was devised through Darwin's observations and is continually revised through observation. Lemaître based his theory of the Big Bang on the observations of Edward Hubble. Over time more evidence has been provided, such as microwave background radiation, and conversely contrary evidence has been provided, such as dark matter and Baryon asymmetry. Even the dual resonance model (the origin of String theory), easily the hardest of the theories I've mentioned to prove (and thus the weakest theory), at least based itself off of known physics and quantum mechanics.

Creationism's primary goal, on the other hand, is disproving other models. Intelligent design can't be observed and is impossible to test. And there is a striking difference between the inability of testing a theory and the impossibility of testing. Intelligent design simply isn't based on science in any significant ways, except in the way it uses science to try to disprove other scientific theories, which does absolutely nothing to validate itself.

Going back to the argument of "where does matter come from?," the Large Hadron Collider is attempting to test the Higgs boson in order to figure out exactly that. See: testable science.

[Dylan]

It's interesting that you're both arguing for the same thing (the need for a deity), yet have opposing view points as to the necessity. In either case, by arguing for a deity, you're allowing that deity to break all scientific models in existence. If this deity is necessary to break the constraints of science, why is the deity the only entity capable of breaking such constraints? You're both fully admitting, inherently, that something has to be capable of ignoring the laws of the universe - in both of your cases an omnipotent deity - but the question that remains is why does that force have to be a god? What evidence or observations do we have that omnipotence is required?

Once you get past the point that it is necessary for there to be a force that manipulates the fundamental laws of reality so that it might exist as it does, there really isn't much past that that can be detailed through observation. I cannot say with utmost certainty that this force is what we understand as God, but it doesn't sound too far off. Anything with such a massive level of influence is clearly beyond anything we've yet to comprehend, besides of course our understanding of God as all powerful.

What evidence suggests that there must be a time when matter came into existence, but that time before a deity came into existence is irrelevant?

I don't think that I've done a good job explaining my thoughts on this so far. I believe that God as an omnipotent entity is not bound inside of time. God exists outside of the basic constraints that we understand, again being time and space. If this is the case, than time can be understood as an invention. This would mean that while God can make appearances manipulate invents in time, he is not restricted by that time. Understanding this, it can be reasoned that there is no such thing as "before creation", because the necessary mechanisms to describe the concept of "before" were not yet set into place.

That's what the scientific model tries to ascertain. The hypothetico-deductive model not only requires observations and theories, but it requires predictions and collaboration. That's a major problem with the Big Bang Theory, String Theory, and macro evolution, to be sure - there's no current method to test those theories, and thus no chance for collaboration (though some strides are being made towards explaining the Big Bang theory, which I'll get to, and micro evolution has long since been proven). Creationism, on the other hand, isn't even based on empirical observations. It's based on an observation no more empirical than "we are, therefor if we exist, a god must exist." Evolution was devised through Darwin's observations and is continually revised through observation. Lemaître based his theory of the Big Bang on the observations of Edward Hubble. Over time more evidence has been provided, such as microwave background radiation, and conversely contrary evidence has been provided, such as dark matter and Baryon asymmetry. Even the dual resonance model (the origin of String theory), easily the hardest of the theories I've mentioned to prove (and thus the weakest theory), at least based itself off of known physics and quantum mechanics.

But as you said, some of the most accepted scientific theories cannot be tested or measured, at which point I would question whether or not they can be regarded as scientific in any sense. I understand what you're saying about basing something in our understanding of physics, but if there is no method to test any of these theories, than they are as unscientific as religion is being considered.

Creationism's primary goal, on the other hand, is disproving other models. Intelligent design can't be observed and is impossible to test. And there is a striking difference between the inability of testing a theory and the impossibility of testing. Intelligent design simply isn't based on science in any significant ways, except in the way it uses science to try to disprove other scientific theories, which does absolutely nothing to validate itself.

That's a very bold assumption to make. Creationism is a theory more than anything else. If creationism is also the first theory, than it can be reasoned that it's intention could not possibly have been to counteract other theories based on its conception, leading to the conclusion that this idea is either augmented or subjective.

However, I would argue that the understanding of the impossible existence of the present would make an equally valid indicator as would any of the other basic footholds for current theories.

Going back to the argument of "where does matter come from?," the Large Hadron Collider is attempting to test the Higgs boson in order to figure out exactly that. See: testable science.

And with yet no result. If something does come from this, then we will have a remarkable breakthrough in our understanding of science. If nothing comes of this, then nothing was accomplished.

[Jrecee]

Crux, I hope you're planning to keep this up. I'm more interested in observing than joining in at this point.

[Limewater]

People don't necessarily believe in God because they read about him in a book (though that could be the case), God is inferred because as far as we can tell, it is necessary for him to exist. Returning to the origin of the universe, the things we understand about science make life as we know it impossible to exist. We cannot see an effect like the expansion and origin of the universe without a cause. If matter and energy cannot be created, then there is no logical way that they can exist. If there is empirical evidence to support that the cell theory is correct in inferring that all cells must come from preexisting cells, then it is not unreasonable to assume that there must be something that we don't understand beyond physics and biology. The basic idea is that while an atheist infers nothing (at this time, at least), a religious person infers God, or in other words an all encompassing and immutable force that constructed reality as we understand it.

The idea of "before G_d created anything" is pretty silly, imo. If you assume that G_d created the universe, then asking that is like asking what Charles Dickens did to the left of page one of Oliver Twist.

It's interesting that you're both arguing for the same thing (the need for a deity), yet have opposing view points as to the necessity. In either case, by arguing for a deity, you're allowing that deity to break all scientific models in existence. If this deity is necessary to break the constraints of science, why is the deity the only entity capable of breaking such constraints? You're both fully admitting, inherently, that something has to be capable of ignoring the laws of the universe - in both of your cases an omnipotent deity - but the question that remains is why does that force have to be a god? What evidence or observations do we have that omnipotence is required? What evidence suggests that there must be a time when matter came into existence, but that time before a deity came into existence is irrelevant?

I do not believe that I have argued here for the need for a deity. I have, however, stated that I do believe that one exists. I'm not sure about Dylan. I confess that I haven't really read all of his posts.

A supernatural deity is, by definition, outside of the bounds of science.

I will say that I believe that "god in the gaps" arguments are pretty weak.

Regarding your last question, though:

What evidence suggests that there must be a time when matter came into existence, but that time before a deity came into existence is irrelevant?

I don't offer any evidence that there must have been a time when matter came into existence. To be honest, I don't actually believe that is true. I don't believe there was a time before matter.

I'm not sure "time before a deity came into existence" has been discussed on this thread, though I could easily be mistaken. I've skipped or skimmed a few posts.

If G_d created the universe, then the idea of "before G_d" doesn't make any sense, just as the idea of "before the Big Bang" doesn't make any sense. It's not a question of relevance.

Alternatively, you can look at the case of a cartoonist making a three-panel comic strip. In this strip, panels are laid out left to right, with events in panel 1 occurring "before" events in panel 2 which occur before events in panel 3. To the character in panel 2, "before" is essentially left, and "after" is essentially right. Here, the cartoonist is the creator, and the comic strip is a tiny created world.

Us asking, "what came before G_d?" is in some sense like a character in the comic strip asking, "What is to the left of the illustrator?"

Apart from this, the idea of attempting to apply logic and/or reasoning to things external to the natural world is not a particularly good strategy, imo.

[crux]

First of all, just to get this out of the way, there's been no absolute proof of Higgs boson - some have argued that potential proof has already presented itself. It's just that there was no direct observation.

More to the point, the important part to focus on here is not that direct evidence has yet to present itself, but that the scientific community has a testable method in which to validate or invalidate a theory. Something which creationism or intelligent design does not have. In fact, the LHC could help provide evidence for both the Big Bang Theory and the String theory. I tried to stress before that theories like the Big Bang, which is an ongoing event that started billions of years in the past, or Darwinism which draws parallels to the Big Bang in that respect (old and ongoing), can garner evidence through observation, even if they can't be unambiguously proven. That's still more than intelligent design can say, and WAY more than creationism can claim.

I'll start with creationism, since it's the easiest to discredit (and I mean no offense or arrogance here, as hopefully I'll show). The most important reason for this, as opposed to intelligent design, is that Creationism is based on religious beliefs. This serves as an immediate pratfall, as those religions themselves are based on texts and faith instead of observation. Young Earth creationism, for instance, is based on a 10,000 year old time-line pulled directly from the Bible. Creation science seeks to find evidence for the Genesis creation model. It's seeking evidence based on supposed facts in a book, that itself, has no scientific method. They're literally seeking evidence based on their faith. They believe that scientific theories on the origin of the Universe are routed in a priori (justifications rather than arguments) presumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism, yet readily accept the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism when it involves chemistry or medicine. They are interested in their bottom line, as MrPopo alluded to, and have no interest in looking beyond their own religious text unless it benefits them.

Intelligent Design is based on conceptions, not observations. And therein lies the problem. I can list for you right now a few of the more central concepts of Intelligent Design. The most basic belief has already been mentioned: That for there to be a beginning, someone must have created it. That in itself only serves to posit more questions, many of which I already asked. If the universe requires a creator, what about the creator? Why is the creator immune to the rules placed upon the universe? The answers to these questions can only either be stemmed in faith or else beg more questions.

Irreducible complexity refers to the interacting parts that function together and cannot function apart, which Intelligent Design argues could not be developed through evolution. It's a theory literally based on disproving another theory. It's a solid one at that, because it would damage Darwinian evolution if proven, but in and of itself it isn't an argument for intelligent design, as it really asks only for an alternative to that flaw in Darwinian evolution. Specified complexity is tautology based on an arbitrary assumption, rather than evidence. The fine-tuned universe is much the same - it's speculative rather than based on evidence.

Limewater: You responded while I was in the middle of writing this, but I do believe the above is a sufficient retort to your response. If one is to claim that god is supernatural by definition, that only serves as proof that the supernatural exists, and is thereby in some capacity natural. "Supernatural" is such an un-scientific term because it refers to something that cannot be measured, which begs the question of whether it exists at all. It's the same as saying, "God is supernatural, the proof being that he cannot be measured." It's a thought-terminating cliché.

[Dylan]

*long response*

An important thing to mention is that I do not believe that I can prove an existence like God. Likewise, I have yet to see any proof that can directly disprove that idea. Now, I'm not referring to the "if you can't prove it it must be real" idea, more I'm just offering a case as to why it could be considered a valid theory. You mention a lot that for something to be valid, it must be measurable or testable. However, if no theory has been tested to the point of certain validity, then by the same logic all theories must then be regarded as invalid. Whether or not it's at presently considered possible to gauge any given theory is irrelevant if that point has not been reached, or in the end is not even possible to be gauged after all.

Because there is a finite amount of matter, I do believe that at some point people will hit the wall as far as discovery and gaining knowledge goes, and I believe that the questions presented regarding the most mysterious events like these will still likely not be answered. At that point, people have no choice but to take the truth for granted. Even if such a future is not to pass, that is most certainly what we're doing now. No strong concept can be yet dismissed in the face of such limited perception, people don't realize that they are accepting axioms no matter what path they follow.

Perhaps my primary idea is that we are dealing with a reality that is not known to us, at least not at this time. Now, that doesn't mean we don't have ideas to work with, either granted to us or self conceived, or both. We're tending towards our ideas because we consider them closer to the truth of the matter. I am not here to say that I can argue any ideas as correct beyond the shadow of a doubt, I find this to be a fool's errand. I am merely presenting a rationalization and a case for my beliefs. Frankly, there's a reason that this debate has gone on for centuries, I believe that alone can demonstrate the ideas I'm trying to convey on the matter. I can argue these ideas back and forth until time ends, but because nobody's playing with a full deck the debate just cycles continuously. I do believe, however, that at some point our existences will invariably be consummated. That will be very interesting to see (or not see).

[Jrecee]

*long response*

An important thing to mention is that I do not believe that I can prove an existence like God. Likewise, I have yet to see any proof that can directly disprove that idea. Now, I'm not referring to the "if you can't prove it it must be real" idea, more I'm just offering a case as to why it could be considered a valid theory. You mention a lot that for something to be valid, it must be measurable or testable. However, if no theory has been tested to the point of certain validity, then by the same logic all theories must then be regarded as invalid. Whether or not it's at presently considered possible to gauge any given theory is irrelevant if that point has not been reached, or in the end is not even possible to be gauged after all.

Because there is a finite amount of matter, I do believe that at some point people will hit the wall as far as discovery and gaining knowledge goes, and I believe that the questions presented regarding the most mysterious events like these will still likely not be answered. At that point, people have no choice but to take the truth for granted. Even if such a future is not to pass, that is most certainly what we're doing now. No strong concept can be yet dismissed in the face of such limited perception, people don't realize that they are accepting axioms no matter what path they follow.

Perhaps my primary idea is that we are dealing with a reality that is not known to us, at least not at this time. Now, that doesn't mean we don't have ideas to work with, either granted to us or self conceived, or both. We're tending towards our ideas because we consider them closer to the truth of the matter. I am not here to say that I can argue any ideas as correct beyond the shadow of a doubt, I find this to be a fool's errand. I am merely presenting a rationalization and a case for my beliefs. Frankly, there's a reason that this debate has gone on for centuries, I believe that alone can demonstrate the ideas I'm trying to convey on the matter. I can argue these ideas back and forth until time ends, but because nobody's playing with a full deck the debate just cycles continuously. I do believe, however, that at some point our existences will invariably be consummated. That will be very interesting to see (or not see).

Obviously this discussion is leaning towards the philosophical end, but my arguments are usually based on the every day effects of religion.

Above you more or less say that the concept of creationism can't be tested or studied. Earlier in the topic you suggested that creationism/intelligent design in schools could be just as valid as evolution. But evolution is a testable theory, well within the realm of science, where religion falls under theology. Just because science can't disprove a god doesn't mean it should be seriously considered as a subject to be found in biology books.

[Dylan]

Above you more or less say that the concept of creationism can't be tested or studied. Earlier in the topic you suggested that creationism/intelligent design in schools could be just as valid as evolution. But evolution is a testable theory, well within the realm of science, where religion falls under theology. Just because science can't disprove a god doesn't mean it should be seriously considered as a subject to be found in biology books.

Not necessarily true. Macroevolution is not testable and there hasn't been gathered enough empirical evidence to certainly prove its existence. As far as the actual scientific method is concerned, it's in the exact same place as religion, which is to say that it's simply a hypothesis* with no true testing done on the subject.

*Regrettably I've been misusing the word "theory" until now. Hypothesis is a more accurate term.

[Limewater]

Limewater: You responded while I was in the middle of writing this, but I do believe the above is a sufficient retort to your response.

I'm starting to think that you don't actually read my posts for content. The stuff you refer to as "the above" has nothing to do with what I wrote. I am pretty sure that at no point on this thread have I ever argued for creationism, intelligent design, of the existence or non-existence of any deity.

The argument I made earlier, and one you saw fit to quote a couple of posts back was in response to a question that inherently assumed that G_d created the universe.

If one is to claim that god is supernatural by definition, that only serves as proof that the supernatural exists, and is thereby in some capacity natural.

No. You're describing a logical fallacy I did not make (question begging) to claim that I made an argument that I did not make to reach a conclusion that makes no sense.

If you assume that a deity exists, and that this deity created the entire universe (that is, all of nature), then this deity must be above or external to nature (supernatural). You're perfectly welcome to reject either assumption-- though you probably shouldn't reject the first while accepting the second.

If you believe that a deity exists that only created part of the universe, then I guess all bets are off.

I'm not going to attempt to argue the existence or non-existence of any deity or the supernatural.

"Supernatural" is such an un-scientific term because it refers to something that cannot be measured, which begs the question of whether it exists at all.

Of course the term "supernatural" is unscientific. That's pretty much the entire point.

It's the same as saying, "God is supernatural, the proof being that he cannot be measured." It's a thought-terminating cliché.

With all due respect, please read my posts for content and respond to the ideas and/or arguments that are actually in them before replying. Honestly, it feels a little insulting.

For what it's worth, I'm glad that I didn't make the argument you so soundly trounced here. Not that I think I would have.