A logical evaluation of the Universe resulting in God.

[mhaberling]

Many people in this forum like to use the argument of a lack of observable evidence to argue against God's existence....  I am going to attempt to provide such evidence.

First off I would like to establish that to find evidence I would need to attack this Scientifically, Well since I cannot use any physical examples I will only use logical analysis.

Now continuing... Is truth is definite? There is no way to say the Truth is relative without putting forward a definite truth. Since saying the Truth is relative is paradoxical in nature then by logical analysis I have to conclude that the truth is in fact definite. Now if that is true there should be some definite truth that I could point to. I find that in mathematics. It is impossible to conceive a universe in which 1+1 = 3 or 4*4 = 15. Since there is no relativity to math it must in fact be definite.

Before I go on I want to give one more illustration to truth's concrete nature. One can not imagine a universe that creates a creature that has an appetite for food but provides none. So then how can one perceive a  universe that produces humans... a creature with an appetite for Truth (truth by the definition of the word being definite) and provide none.

Anyways off of that little jaunt.... We have clearly logically determined the existence of the metaphysical. Math has no physical manifestation. You can not hit math with a baseball bat yet it exists. So the next question is where does it exist? Well certainty it can exist within a mind. However math was not invented it was discovered. Like the natural laws it did not start working when people figured it out. It is indeed possible to imagine a universe with no sentience in which mathematics still work. So then where can math exist except inside a conscious mind? One might say it could exist in writing, however math worked long before it was written down, so it must be manifest somewhere else. The only place that could have let math be manifest since the orgins of the universe ( and all truth for that matter ) could be inside an eternal consciousness or in more basic terms the mind of god. Now if this is true, the christian tradition of "In the beginning the word(truth) was with me(god) and I was the word" (not exact quote) Really makes allot of sense.

Please respond I'm ready to see any possible attacks to this logic.

[Azdgari]

Math is descriptive.  It's a model that conscious minds use to imitate and predict nature.  Were conscious beings not around, math would not have been invented, and the universe would carry on as usual.

A serious, heavy question for you:  Why is it important to you to try to establish the existence of a deity?  What motivates you to do so?

[Add Homonym]

Many people in this forum like to use the argument of a lack of observable evidence to argue against God's existence....  I am going to attempt to provide such evidence.

First off I would like to establish that to find evidence I would need to attack this Scientifically, Well since I cannot use any physical examples I will only use logical analysis.

Science isn't really about logic. Logic can lead you to a hypothesis, which then has to be tested. The truth has no obligation to be logical, except after-the-fact, maybe.

Now continuing... Is truth is definite? There is no way to say the Truth is relative without putting forward a definite truth. Since saying the Truth is relative is paradoxical in nature then by logical analysis I have to conclude that the truth is in fact definite. Now if that is true there should be some definite truth that I could point to. I find that in mathematics. It is impossible to conceive a universe in which 1+1 = 3 or 4*4 = 15. Since there is no relativity to math it must in fact be definite.

Unfortunately, it's also impossible to conceive of any colour outside of what we already see, and yet it's very probable that our brains could be modified to perceive another colour. Mathematics may go hand in hand with this universe, and not with others. If maths exists by itself, then the universe will exist automatically. So, mathematics is something that we imagine, like colours.

Before I go on I want to give one more illustration to truth's concrete nature. One can not imagine a universe that creates a creature that has an appetite for food but provides none. So then how can one perceive a  universe that produces humans... a creature with an appetite for Truth (truth by the definition of the word being definite) and provide none.

Arguably, we never get the truth, and stumble from one delusion to the next. Also, I'm not sure we have an appetite for the truth. If we did, then most people would not be horrendously deluded about simple matters.

Anyways off of that little jaunt.... We have clearly logically determined the existence of the metaphysical. Math has no physical manifestation. You can not hit math with a baseball bat yet it exists.

You can't hit the colour red with a baseball, either.

So the next question is where does it exist? Well certainty it can exist within a mind.

Tick.

However math was not invented it was discovered. Like the natural laws it did not start working when people figured it out.

The colour red was not working before humans perceived it. It may still not even be real now.

You are starting to conflate/join our concept of maths with the way the universe appears to work.

It is indeed possible to imagine a universe with no sentience in which mathematics still work.

Untick.

Please respond I'm ready to see any possible attacks to this logic.

Pretty much the whole way.

[carstensenscott]

Its bad enough...sad enough, that the bible etc. are located in the non-fiction part of the library. The word deity should forever be stricken as a word of make believe.

[none]

hi, mhaberling.
you don't need to attack anything.
defending truth is the objective IMO
you don't need science to prove evidence of God's existence.... and that all depends on what you define God as... I say "God" is omnipotent and being omnipotent means "God" is imaginary.
I can prove that with logic.
mods are on my ass, but I am pretty sure I can quote my  own post from "another place".... not that I can't reproduce the argument from scratch so to speak, but I  prefer to cut and paste it...
anyways...
you start off with: definite truth being necessary.
well if that is true then you don't need any other truth from any other source to confirm that definite truth exists if definite truth being necessary is necessary.
2nd 3rd 4th blah blah blah truths are not necessary... because you know that definite truth being necessary is true.
and math can exist on paper, and it can be digitized.
um, yeah math is an invention and its creator is evolution IMO... maybe some chemists will come along and disagree I don't know organics is not my expertise.
bullshit on math not working in any sense of the word bullshit or working.
it is obvious that everything is not you, there must be more than one.
math at work^
logic confirms it.
oh, imagination...
great..
imagination
it exists in our universe the universe.
between me and you there ain't no other universe besides ours which it just simply identified as the universe and you can express the idea of another universe all you want but it won't make it real even if I agree with you because we are not alone and even if we were there would just be the universe and our agreement of an alternate universe or universes.
imagination, a great tool use it responsibly.
math can't be manifest anywhere else except here in this universe and there is no outside so get over it. same argument for the outside of the universe works for multiple universe hypotheticals and it doesn't matter how many people or entities agree with you.
Jesus or whatever metaphysical thing you can conceptualize can agree with you, it doesn't matter. that is the beauty of the imagination or make believe it does what you want..
anyways...
"in the beginning" famous words in a book manifest in our universe and agreed to by you and many others, doesn't make it real though.. it is just an idea and you expressed it so it exists as an expression.
I don't think, and maybe I am mistaken, that I have to explain the rest of the God sentence for you to understand that it too is just an expression and I don't mean slang.
welcome to the forum btw.
 
hope I addressed the "logic" to your satisfaction.

[ParkingPlaces]

1+1=2 because we have defined 2 to mean the same thing as 1+1. Not because of the existence of some mysterious universal database of facts.

Numbers are what we count with. They are what we describe constants with. They, like colors, are figments of our imagination that we use to try to make sense of the universe. That we can apply them to reality only means that we have made a reality that matches our numbers. And taught it to each other.

We humans don't have to define things well enough to call them the truth, though we often times assume that we have done just that. Colors, for instance, are a lie. Our brains, encased in a dark skull, have no direct contact with the outer world. Our eyes see something, send a signal to our brain, which then finds some way to represent and identify and name and give meaning to whatever the "red" or "green" or "round" or "far" thing is, and what it means to us, as per social and individual norms. And to top it off, a red ball isn't red. Rather, red is the one color that ball doesn't absorb. So what we are seeing is what that ball isn't, so to speak.

The Japanese don't distinguish between green and blue. They are just different shades of the same color. We westerners beg to differ. Humans do stuff like this all the time. What we do manage to discover and define and use is pretty amazing. But those things are not necessarily either universal or constant. Remember, our take on the universe does not have to be correct to work. It only needs to be correct enough. It doesn't matter what color a leopard is as long as we can see it. It doesn't matter what color a poison berry is as long as we can use some method of recognizing and defining and telling our children about it so they too know not to eat it.

You've never touched the chair you are sitting in. You think you have. You treat the chair as something you do touch. If you stub your toe on its leg in the dark it is hard to convince you that you've never touched it. But the atoms in your butt and in your pants (which don't touch either) are unable to get through the molecular force field that holds objects apart. You can feel the existence of the chair, you can see and define and give a color name to the chair. But you can't actually touch it. Or your keyboard. Or your wife.

For that matter, we think that things are solid or liquid or gas. Because we define them as such. But if all the space were removed from between the atomic particles that make up our planet and everything on it, it would all crunch down to a very heavy chink about the size of a Volkswagen. We think everything is solid. Reality knows different. And we have no innate ability to perceive that lack of solidity.

We can make instruments that can detect it. But we can't.

So be careful about how much faith you put in logic. We can apply it all we want. We just can't assume that it reflects any ultimate "truth".

Added: none sort of beat me, saying similar things in his own way.  But I'm posting this anyway.

[none]

1+1=2 because we have defined 2 to mean the same thing as 1+1. Not because of the existence of some mysterious universal database of facts.

Numbers are what we count with. They are what we describe constants with. They, like colors, are figments of our imagination that we use to try to make sense of the universe. That we can apply them to reality only means that we have made a reality that matches our numbers. And taught it to each other.

We humans don't have to define things well enough to call them the truth, though we often times assume that we have done just that. Colors, for instance, are a lie. Our brains, encased in a dark skull, have no direct contact with the outer world. Our eyes see something, send a signal to our brain, which then finds some way to represent and identify and name and give meaning to whatever the "red" or "green" or "round" or "far" thing is, and what it means to us, as per social and individual norms. And to top it off, a red ball isn't red. Rather, red is the one color that ball doesn't absorb. So what we are seeing is what that ball isn't, so to speak.

The Japanese don't distinguish between green and blue. They are just different shades of the same color. We westerners beg to differ. Humans do stuff like this all the time. What we do manage to discover and define and use is pretty amazing. But those things are not necessarily either universal or constant. Remember, our take on the universe does not have to be correct to work. It only needs to be correct enough. It doesn't matter what color a leopard is as long as we can see it. It doesn't matter what color a poison berry is as long as we can use some method of recognizing and defining and telling our children about it so they too know not to eat it.

You've never touched the chair you are sitting in. You think you have. You treat the chair as something you do touch. If you stub your toe on its leg in the dark it is hard to convince you that you've never touched it. But the atoms in your butt and in your pants (which don't touch either) are unable to get through the molecular force field that holds objects apart. You can feel the existence of the chair, you can see and define and give a color name to the chair. But you can't actually touch it. Or your keyboard. Or your wife.

For that matter, we think that things are solid or liquid or gas. Because we define them as such. But if all the space were removed from between the atomic particles that make up our planet and everything on it, it would all crunch down to a very heavy chink about the size of a Volkswagen. We think everything is solid. Reality knows different. And we have no innate ability to perceive that lack of solidity.

We can make instruments that can detect it. But we can't.

So be careful about how much faith you put in logic. We can apply it all we want. We just can't assume that it reflects any ultimate "truth".

Added: none sort of beat me, saying similar things in his own way.  But I'm posting this anyway.

blue is a figment of my imagination?
my face turning blue is a figment of my imagination?
how blue do I have to become before blue can be observed?
yeah, I resisted the temptation to throw my attitude around.
I am learning.. very slowly 

[Astreja]

So then where can math exist except inside a conscious mind?

Math is merely a language used to describe quantities and their relationships to one another.  Two rocks sitting beside two rocks will be four rocks even if no one is thinking about them or writing equations about them.

[kaziglu bey]

Its bad enough...sad enough, that the bible etc. are located in the non-fiction part of the library. The word deity should forever be stricken as a word of make believe.

At my local library, one of the librarians is an atheist. We often chat, because he can tell from my book selection that I am too. He told me that when he first started at the library, when there was nothing to do, he would put their copies of the Bible in the Fiction section. He did this until his coworkers started complaining about Bibles always being in the wrong place. His story made my day. I'd also like to point out that the Library of Congress system classifies the Bible with the letters "BS". No joke. Go to your library and check.

[ParkingPlaces]

blue is a figment of my imagination?
my face turning blue is a figment of my imagination?
how blue do I have to become before blue can be observed?
yeah, I resisted the temptation to throw my attitude around.
I am learning.. very slowly 

You can call it blue. I call it blue. Those of us not colorblind all agree it is blue.

It actually isn't. But there is no need to quibble as long as we all say it is.

The real world we see looks just like we think it does because that is what our brain tells us. I find it more fun to think about what reality is really like than I do arguing with fellow deceived humans about it. It is mind blowing. At least for me.

[Irish]

Well certainty it can exist within a mind.

[...]

It is indeed possible to imagine a universe with no sentience in which mathematics still work.

Math is something that a conscious mind uses to describe an attribute about the universe.  Without sentience there are no conscious minds to construct the mathematical frameworks we have now.

And without mathematics the universe wouldn't notice and still exist without any change.

[none]

blue is a figment of my imagination?
my face turning blue is a figment of my imagination?
how blue do I have to become before blue can be observed?
yeah, I resisted the temptation to throw my attitude around.
I am learning.. very slowly 

You can call it blue. I call it blue. Those of us not colorblind all agree it is blue.

It actually isn't. But there is no need to quibble as long as we all say it is.

The real world we see looks just like we think it does because that is what our brain tells us. I find it more fun to think about what reality is really like than I do arguing with fellow deceived humans about it. It is mind blowing. At least for me.

wow.
can I give you a shiny star?
oh fuck...
I just read your post.
this is not good...
this deserves a double wow and a no shit, possibly a fuck heck two fucks and shit... and an OMG plus the crazy combination of the words horse bullshit on the up-down of the sideways looking domple and that is one big domple!
did you get all that?
are you here?
come on?
where are you?
where can you go?
can you see it?
is it real?
can you escape reality?
and don't turn blue.
fight ParkingPlaces, fight because you deserve it.
and they are only questions... nothing more, nothing less.

[mhaberling]

Answering some of the arguments....

First off Im going to make a very simplified review of the argument,

The truth is definite, The existence of a metaphysical requires a mind to hold it or a know-er of the truth, thus God exists...
Something I did not think of before, at the base of the Christian creation story, God literally created the universe with declarative sentences. The universe is mearly a result of God's creation of the Truth. If my argument is correct

NO... your color argument doesn't work, This evaluation clearly says that it will not even use observation as a means of uncovering the truth. Color is an interpretation of electromagnetic radiation... So to say that Color is different for everyone in no way applies because interpretation and truth are not the same thing.

This entire argument is based around what is possible within the confines of logic... My arguments about what is conceptually possible are attached to this Idea. You may not be able to conceive other colors, however that does not make them illogical, The arguments I make about conception are all based on the idea that you cannot conceive them because they are illogical.

The argument that math is descriptive, or language.... Math is used to describe, however math is constant. Language can vary greatly. Is this pool filled with water or liquid ice? How we describe things is based on our perspective. Math though is constant, it transcends perspective, because there is no other logical way for it to work. If this is true, then it is not invented but instead discovered by conscious minds. If we could invent it it would take on many forms, but instead there is only one logical form it can take. To say that we discovered, not invented it says that it existed before we did.

None... Just to clear something up, I was not making an argument i=of multiple universes, I was making an argument to say that a universe in which truth did not exist (or wasn't definite) is illogical.

Parking Places.... Be careful how much faith you put in logic.... Logic is the most basic of the natural laws, It is what all Science is base on... When you say things like this it is hard to take you seriously.

Azdgari.... I write this not for my own benefit, but for those reading it. What this argument does is overturn a very large assumption. That Atheism is arguing from the side of logic, reason-ability, and science and theists are the ones bringing forward and argument that requires an ignorance to logic and science to be taken seriously. In the arguments conclusion it appears to be opposite of that.

This argument does not say... this is why you should believe in a higher power, it simply removes reasons not to.

[Azdgari]

Azdgari.... I write this not for my own benefit, but for those reading it. What this argument does is overturn a very large assumption. That Atheism is arguing from the side of logic, reason-ability, and science and theists are the ones bringing forward and argument that requires an ignorance to logic and science to be taken seriously. In the arguments conclusion it appears to be opposite of that.

This argument does not say... this is why you should believe in a higher power, it simply removes reasons not to.

That is not at all what I asked.  I asked what motivates you to try to establish the existence of a deity.  Not to communicate your thoughts to others, but to make the attempt in the first place.

Also, your argument requires an ignorance of mathematics and how it came to be.  Arguments for deities typically do rely on ignorance.  Ignorance is a theist's stock in trade.  Knowledge is the enemy.

[ParkingPlaces]

In other words, mhaberling, you think you're right so therefore you win?

First, what I was saying about color had nothing to do with different people experiencing it differently. It had to do with the fact that our mind makes it up. It takes the undefined information coming into the brain via the optic nerve and toys with it until it becomes either useful or irrelevant information. The brain has learned to tell us that that round thing is a ball and to interpret via stereo vision how far away it is and call it red and that is all we need to know. The round thing exists, though its color is a human invention via the brains need to classify. It is a given distance away, which may or may nor be useful information, depending on how bad we need it. Its solidness is a figment of our imagination because we don't have the perceptive abilities to see or otherwise naturally detect that literally 99.99999999% of the ball is empty space. Because we don't need that information.

This doesn't mean that some more accurately perceptive brain caused all of this. This means that a) the universe and our surroundings aren't what we assume them to be and b) that doesn't matter because we eke out enough info to survive in this environment.

You are saying that there can be no tree to fall in a forest to make the sound perhaps not heard unless something somewhere first perceives of everything in such a way that it becomes real. Unless someone talks it into being. Well, not someone. A god. And until god says he wants light, it can't exist.

That is a human mind drawing conclusions using incomplete knowledge and a reality distorted by reality itself. Where science hits is boundaries, it says "we don't know." When a religious person hits their boundaries they say "god did it" and smugly claim that they have won.

There is no such thing as a one person consensus. You may think you have it figured out. But you don't. You only have what you want to be true figured out.

[jetson]

You may think you have it figured out. But you don't. You only have what you want to be true figured out.

Damn, I think I said this to one of my kids recently?  Yep. I'm sure of it.

[Jag]

Before I go on I want to give one more illustration to truth's concrete nature. One can not imagine a universe that creates a creature that has an appetite for food but provides none. So then how can one perceive a  universe that produces humans... a creature with an appetite for Truth (truth by the definition of the word being definite) and provide none.

Big difference between a creature with an appetite for Truth, and a creature with an appetite for Answers. You presume that because you find what you identify as Truth (and with a capital T no less), and that you felt an appetite for said truth, then what you found is, in fact, truth.

 I contend that what you found was an answer that satisfied you. That doesn't make it Truth. It's just an answer. Not even with a capital A.

[ParkingPlaces]

You may think you have it figured out. But you don't. You only have what you want to be true figured out.

Damn, I think I said this to one of my kids recently?  Yep. I'm sure of it.

Hey, did I tell you about the cool spy drone I built?

[mhaberling]

Also, your argument requires an ignorance of mathematics and how it came to be.  Arguments for deities typically do rely on ignorance.  Ignorance is a theist's stock in trade.  Knowledge is the enemy.

What would you say is the origin of Mathematics, Im interested to see where you are going with this....

And your heavy question... You are acting as if I'm trying to prove something to myself...

Parking Places... Are you trying to say that the human consciousness is too limited to verify the existence of a deity???

I'm just trying to make sure I have the right interpretation of your arguments so I can respond. Thanks!


Jag, Would you say you do not have an appetite for truth??

[ParkingPlaces]

Parking Places... Are you trying to say that the human consciousness is too limited to verify the existence of a deity???

I'm just trying to make sure I have the right interpretation of your arguments so I can respond. Thanks!

Technically yes. Especially if said deity doesn't want to be found. But the human mind it isn't too limited to make one up. Witness how many that you agree don't exist there are.

Edit: it is so hard to post on a frickin' iPad. Had to fix the quoting on my real computer.

Added: Though our minds may not be able to detect one, our machines might be able to. Right now there are scientists doing research to determine if the entire universe is a hologram rather than real. The implications are rather staggering.

[none]

blue is a figment of my imagination?
my face turning blue is a figment of my imagination?
how blue do I have to become before blue can be observed?
yeah, I resisted the temptation to throw my attitude around.
I am learning.. very slowly 

You can call it blue. I call it blue. Those of us not colorblind all agree it is blue.

It actually isn't. But there is no need to quibble as long as we all say it is.

The real world we see looks just like we think it does because that is what our brain tells us. I find it more fun to think about what reality is really like than I do arguing with fellow deceived humans about it. It is mind blowing. At least for me.

wow.
can I give you a shiny star?
oh fuck...
I just read your post.
this is not good...
this deserves a double wow and a no shit, possibly a fuck heck two fucks and shit... and an OMG plus the crazy combination of the words horse bullshit on the up-down of the sideways looking domple and that is one big domple!
did you get all that?
are you here?
come on?
where are you?
where can you go?
can you see it?
is it real?
can you escape reality?
and don't turn blue.
fight ParkingPlaces, fight because you deserve it.
and they are only questions... nothing more, nothing less.

why didn't ParkingPlaces give me +1

[ParkingPlaces]

why didn't ParkingPlaces give me +1

Fixed. Had to wait til the drugs kicked in.

[none]

why didn't ParkingPlaces give me +1

Fixed. Had to wait til the drugs kicked in.

oh yeah drugs now?
really?
from your sig... and kinda a derail in this thread but it's fun...
My kids' right to not get murdered exceeds your right to wait till the drugs kicked in.
and thanks, me loves me some karma 

[Azdgari]

What would you say is the origin of Mathematics, Im interested to see where you are going with this....

Math originated as a means to model nature.  As has been mentioned by others, it is based on axioms.  For example, the axiom that a * b = b * a.  This is not true in every possible mathematical system.  Other axioms produce other systems that typically do not model nature.  There are exceptions, albeit few of them.  One uses different axioms to allow for the use of imaginary numbers to model the behaviour of subatomic particles.  I suggest reading some Roger Penrose, he gets into this in quite a bit of detail.  Especially The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (I linked a copy on Amazon).  The upshot is that we've automatically picked the axioms for a "true" math because it's the one that best models the universe as we experience it.  But it's still a human tool.  Even the laws of logic, such as non-contradiction, can break down on a small scale when bits of space-time temporarily split into multiple threads (or plug in whatever interpretation of QM you prefer).

Treating our familiar mathematical axioms as the One True Set^tm is a bias of our own perspective, including where and on what physical scale we happen to live.

And your heavy question... You are acting as if I'm trying to prove something to myself...

And, you've still not answered it.  What I'm getting at is that you seem to have come to a conclusion first, then sought out what at least appears to you to be a logical argument to support it.  Is that a fair interpretation?

[Jag]

Jag, Would you say you do not have an appetite for truth??

No, I wouldn't.

[mhaberling]

Math originated as a means to model nature.  As has been mentioned by others, it is based on axioms.  For example, the axiom that a * b = b * a.  This is not true in every possible mathematical system.  Other axioms produce other systems that typically do not model nature.  There are exceptions, albeit few of them.  One uses different axioms to allow for the use of imaginary numbers to model the behaviour of subatomic particles.  I suggest reading some Roger Penrose, he gets into this in quite a bit of detail.  Especially The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (I linked a copy on Amazon).  The upshot is that we've automatically picked the axioms for a "true" math because it's the one that best models the universe as we experience it.  But it's still a human tool.  Even the laws of logic, such as non-contradiction, can break down on a small scale when bits of space-time temporarily split into multiple threads (or plug in whatever interpretation of QM you prefer).

Treating our familiar mathematical axioms as the One True Set^tm is a bias of our own perspective, including where and on what physical scale we happen to live.

This argument makes sense if you can provide examples of alternative systems that are not based on false assumptions...

And on your big question, this Idea isn't my own... It was presented to me by a friend, as a subject of his dissertation many years ago.  I didn't mention this before because I don't really know you people, and the possibility that his name would come to pass and someone would pester him (an event that he would never approve of or I would hear the end of) What you are seeing is my interpretation and description which does not do it justice. Before this argument I had already come to the conclusion of God's existence on my own terms, But I found this argument really intriguing, and wanted to see what arguments could be made against, and sure up the argument. Not to be made against atheists, but instead against other Christians. I believe the biggest problem with the Christian faith right now lies in fundamentalists, and that this line of logic could help me to curve them to a more reasonable stance.

ParkingPlaces, If you forward that the human consciousness is to limited to detect the existence of a god, Then what you put forward is that the human mind is to limited to come to a conclusion that God exists logically.. Under that idea from a logical perspective God is just as likely to exist as to not exist. And the differences between theism and atheism really falls to a personal weighing of evidence or maybe belief in one side of an unknowable answer.

By the way, I have heard of this experiment before (regarding the universe is a simulation) If that would be true... Would that make this universe any less real??? What are the implications... Are we Unix based or windows based???? 

Jag... A box is presented to you containing the true nature of the Universe... You would never care to open it?

[ParkingPlaces]

ParkingPlaces, If you forward that the human consciousness is to limited to detect the existence of a god, Then what you put forward is that the human mind is to limited to come to a conclusion that God exists logically.. Under that idea from a logical perspective God is just as likely to exist as to not exist. And the differences between theism and atheism really falls to a personal weighing of evidence or maybe belief in one side of an unknowable answer.

By the way, I have heard of this experiment before (regarding the universe is a simulation) If that would be true... Would that make this universe any less real??? What are the implications... Are we Unix based or windows based???? 

Look at it this way. If there is a god that we can't detect, he looks exactly like a non-existent god. Some of us are going to, based on our life experiences, evidence, likelyhoods, intuition, guesses and hope, presumed one reality or the other.


If he is real and undetectable and you are insisting he exists, it is still just a guess. Just like if he doesn't exist and you insist that he does. And if he is undetectable, that means logic can't prove him either.


If he doesn't exist, is appears that it is very easy for the human mind to imagine that he does. Such a mind can also imagine that he is undetectable. And some will use that undetectability as proof that he exists. Just as others will use that same undetectability as evidence that he does not.


So while you are easily able to imagine his existence and excuse the various inconsistencies in his story, I am easily able to imagine the opposite. In part because of the inconsistencies in his story.  I know you don't see inconsistencies, but I do. Hence the difference in our point of view.


Hard to believe we live on the same planet, isn't it.


Added: If god is real and undetectable, I'll bet it sure pisses off christians. Since he has to stay undetectable, he can't give believers any real-world advantage over non-believers or members of other faiths. The number of very sincere christians I have known who died early and oft times pretty terrible deaths (murder, accidents, war, cancer, etc.)are numerous while I, your typical atheist, am humming along just fine at 61 years of age. Were he a plain old detectable entity, then he could give you guys a big advantage, health and welfare-wise, and we non-believers would have to excuse it away to keep our stance on religion.


So thanks for believing in an undetectable lord. It has worked out well for me so far.

[mhaberling]

So parking places... I wan't to summarize the opposing points of veiw... I believe that god's existence is able to be detected through the human consciousness. You believe that the human consciousness is to limited to accomplish the task and based on the evidence you find most important you believe he does not exist... Is this correct?

PS. If you think that Christians thinking god gives them an advantage is irritating for you... It makes a christian that doesn't particularly think they want to be betrayed that way really annoyed.

[ParkingPlaces]

So parking places... I wan't to summarize the opposing points of veiw... I believe that god's existence is able to be detected through the human consciousness. You believe that the human consciousness is to limited to accomplish the task and based on the evidence you find most important you believe he does not exist... Is this correct?


PS. If you think that Christians thinking god gives them an advantage is irritating for you... It makes a christian that doesn't particularly think they want to be betrayed that way really annoyed.

I'm trying to decide if you're putting words in my mouth or not. I'll try restating it. And screw summarizing. It can't be done. Here goes.


I have reason to think that human minds that believe they perceive gods, via any pathway, are imagining their god. Some who thought they detected gods wrote stuff down. Others who have followed combine their acceptance of the stories with the written words and look at the history and texts of their religion as proof.


Those of us who who think otherwise and don’t believe interpret reality and evidence in a different way. We do not look at our birth god (assuming we were born into any of the thousands of religions) as being special or real or obvious or inevitable or necessary. We do not admire our good luck at being born into exactly the right religion, or our luck at having shed a wrong religion because we found the right one later on. We simply ignore the stories because they are so obviously false.


We who do not believe look at the plethora of religious claims in the world and see that they are inventions that have risen from the consciousness of others. They are not truths exposed by rational or other thought. We ground our experiences on real-world events and possibilities instead of injecting a deities into our explanations. We value thinking and discovery and research and inquiry over reliance on cherry-picked ancient texts and culturally ascribed truths requiring "faith". We understand enough about human frailty and the propensity to accept easy explanations simply because they feels good. We understand that some cultures teach that death is to be feared and understand that the fearful ones are oft times willing to accept anything that makes the end of existence seem more palatable.


We understand that peoples steeped in doctrine, be it religious or otherwise, are very protective of the little world they have created and have a difficult time coexisting on a planet with people who have other points of view. We understand that religious morality isn't inherently moral, as demonstrated by muslims who behead their daughters for not accepting a marriage proposal or christians who disown their children who come out of the closet. We understand that human flaws are to be expected because no notion of perfection has ever existed in evolution. All any living creature needs to be to survive is "good enough", not frickin' perfect.


And we understand that people who don't want to have the world be any way but the way they wish it to be will summarily reject all explanations that are inconvenient. They will scoff at our counter-offer of more grounded realities.


Our consciousness serves us well, in general. But it often ruins many things as well.  The limits of consciousness, as applied to religion, are related to the difficulty the brain has matching reality with fairy tales. Those that can do it give up so much, and yet think they are occupying some new, higher plane of knowledge.


Of course we can't perceive a god. The religious have put each and every one out of reach specifically because none exist and the only way they can explain that rationally is to excuse away the absence of their deity. And then they run around looking for feeble proofs, which is their only choice because strong ones cannot exist. Your god cannot be seen. Nor can a hindu one. Coincidence? I don't think so.


Our consciousness is adequate for our survival. It is also competent enough to kill for its own convenience. If there is a god and wanted us perfect while making us this flawed, he should have given it more thought. His omnipotence is a little wanting if a dead son was required to make for a good story.


PS-wise, I can almost see your point, except that it was worded ambiguously enough that I'm not sure you're commenting on what actually said. But if i am interpreting it right, I think I understand. Its sort of the way I feel when you tell us evolutionary theory is full of holes that disqualify it as good science.