popsthebuilder vs Hijiri Byakuren: Does God Exist?

[Hijiri Byakuren (OP)]

As stated back in the discussion thread, the rules are thus:

• One post at a time. After posting, we must each wait for the other person to respond. The only exception is if the moderator steps in and requires a response from one of us.
• No engaging with the Peanut Gallery. It defeats the purpose of one-on-one discussion.
• popsthebuilder will have the first post.
• PickelledEggs will moderate the discussion.

Let us begin.

EDIT: a letter.

[popsthebuilder]

So mutually respecful discussion?

I hate to be a bother, but I'm still not too clear on your stance here, as stated earlier in the discussion thread.

If I am claiming a thing and we are discussing it in a format similar to a debate then doesn't that mean that your are claiming the opposite thing, or at least also claiming a thing?

Also; you said I'm claiming a thing and you are testing it, but how can that be if this is a discussion and not a scientific hypothesis with controls? Is not a discussion two sides of the same coin, and as such if I claim one thing and you look to refute that claim, then indeed you are claiming a thing too, be it the opposite of my position or not.

Does this not make logical sense to you? And if not, could you please explain it through your perception that I might better understand how your position is a logical one. I only ask in hopes of honest profitable conversation, as to continue forward without fully understanding one another seems pointless, and dishonesty, even with ones self has the potential to be quite detrimental to the productivity of said conversation.

Lastly, this ironing out seamed necessary, and apropriate as I was to start it off, and really would like there to be an understanding on both our parts prior to continuing.


Peace, thanks for your understanding.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[Hijiri Byakuren (OP)]

If I am claiming a thing and we are discussing it in a format similar to a debate then doesn't that mean that your are claiming the opposite thing, or at least also claiming a thing?

This is why I wanted a 1-on-1 discussion and not a true debate. I'm exercising skepticism with your claim: you are claiming that God exists, and if this claim is correct then it would radically alter how I conduct my life. However, since I have never encountered anything like God in my daily life, I am not willing to accept this claim on hearsay alone. So if I'm claiming anything, then my claim is merely, "I have never seen this, and I will need to see some proof that can stand up to scrutiny." I hope that makes sense.

[popsthebuilder]

Science can prove without a shadow of a doubt, pretty much nothing. Theories are separate things with very little in the way of unified cohesion, and less in the way of irifutable proof, but you want me to prove to you there is a GOD through discussion?

Sounds good, but instead of insisting one must give scientific proof of a thing, perhaps we can simply discuss it logically.

Anyway, I think we have some level of understanding, I cannot prove the existence of GOD for you or anyone else.  And you cannot prove the absence of GOD whatsoever.

As long as we can both keep this in mind and leave discourse to respectable terms then I would still like to conversate.

So go ahead and ask what you will. Lets get this thing going, shall we?

By the way; if your going to combat or counter everything I say by saying you need proof, then we really shouldn't waste one another's time.

I really do look forward to it though.

Peace


Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[Hijiri Byakuren (OP)]

Science can prove without a shadow of a doubt, pretty much nothing. Theories are separate things with very little in the way of unified cohesion, and less in the way of irifutable proof, but you want me to prove to you there is a GOD through discussion?

Perhaps "proof" was the wrong word. True proof really only exists in mathematics. What I want is evidence.

If you think theories are, together, meant to provide a cohesive explanation of everything, then I think you have misunderstood the purpose of science. Any scientist worth his salt will admit that we don't know enough about the universe to construct a "Theory Of Everything." Until such a time as that is possible, theories have to regard their subject matter on an individual basis, without consideration for the greater whole of the universe. This is why you can have Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics both being used. Theories are meant to be useful for gathering additial data, not 100% correct to anything and everything; the latter would require a Theory Of Everything.

Sounds good, but instead of insisting one must give scientific proof of a thing, perhaps we can simply discuss it logically.

Alright, why must a god logically exist?

Anyway, I think we have some level of understanding, I cannot prove the existence of GOD for you or anyone else.  And you cannot prove the absence of GOD whatsoever.

I don't need to prove that a god does not exist. If there is one, then it can eventually be made known to science. If not, then gods will live only in the realm of fantasy. I don't have an investment in my current beliefs being true; rather, I simply wish to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

By the way; if your going to combat or counter everything I say by saying you need proof, then we really shouldn't waste one another's time.

I will work with your method of thinking as best as I can. Bear in mind, though, your thinking is alien to me. Unlike most people on this forum, I am a lifelong atheist. I never had a previous theistic belief from which I drew away. This isn't to say I've never been religious, but it was not theistic in nature. Nothing supernatural has ever factored into my thinking. I am probably as alien to you as you are to me, so we will need to proceed slowly if we are to understand one another's position.

[popsthebuilder]

I don't think science at tbs time is to prove all within one unifying theory. I was just showing the infancy of science as a tool in stating the vast diversity and lack of cohesion found within different feilds and even within the same field.

The question shouldn't be why GOD must exist. The question should be why we exist.

I assure you; you aren't as alien to me as you may think. I was an atheist for the majority of my life as well, and never was a believer really, at an early age.

Logically things such as mathematically being able to describe all existence lend credence to the possibility of intelegent design.

Things like the conscience insist that all isn't merely the combination of its physical parts.

Altruism in nature between social organisms speaks for the very nature of life and against the selfish theory of survival of the fittest in terms of securing ones own placement at the cost of others. Our unique placement in the cosmos shows our potential and reaposibility and negates any presuposition of nihilism.

I agree that the existence of GOD will, one day be known using scientific tools, even though that wasn't exactly what you where saying.

Peace




Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[Hijiri Byakuren (OP)]

The question shouldn't be why GOD must exist. The question should be why we exist.

I can answer that, but I suspect you knew this already.

Logically things such as mathematically being able to describe all existence lend credence to the possibility of intelligent design.

Math is simply a language, and any language can describe the universe. The ability to describe something does not inherently mean anything.

Things like the conscience insist that all isn't merely the combination of its physical parts.

As best as anyone can tell, consciousness is the product of electrical pulses. It can theoretically exist independently of your body. It's like the religious concept of a soul, except that something must be physically generating it. This is why many scientists are hesitant to try simulating a human brain via computer.

Altruism in nature between social organisms speaks for the very nature of life and against the selfish theory of survival of the fittest in terms of securing ones own placement at the cost of others. Our unique placement in the cosmos shows our potential and responsibility and negates any presupposition of nihilism.

Evolution is not 100% about "survival of the fittest," that's just a strawman many folks like to use. At its barest minimum, evolution is simply a result of something or someone surviving long enough to reproduce. This can include survival of the fittest, but lifeforms working together for mutual benefit would obviously be favored by this principle as well. As always, you must remember that this didn't happen overnight: it is an ancestral trait to all life that exhibits it. Ancestral traits are very hard to evolve out of, which is why some "solitary" animals such as cats will still group up.

[popsthebuilder]

[quote name="popsthebuilder" post=1136683 timestamp=1465599235]
Science can prove without a shadow of a doubt, pretty much nothing. Theories are separate things with very little in the way of unified cohesion, and less in the way of irifutable proof, but you want me to prove to you there is a GOD through discussion?[/quote]Perhaps "proof" was the wrong word. True proof really only exists in mathematics. What I want is evidence.

You do recall that I'm sure.

I thought we agreed to be logical AND truthful.

You realize we can't realistically even hope to have profitable conversation like that, right?

I really feel no need to attempt to justify my claim any further until you address this.

Thanks.

With humility

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[Hijiri Byakuren (OP)]

You do recall that I'm sure.

I thought we agreed to be logical AND truthful.

You realize we can't realistically even hope to have profitable conversation like that, right?

I really feel no need to attempt to justify my claim any further until you address this.

I'm trying to be patient with you here, Pops, but I'm not sure what it is that you want from me. You made a claim that God explains altruism in nature, and I simply said that we already have a satisfactory explanation for that. You claimed that consciousness was not just a combination of physical parts, and I said that you were half-correct and then explained the other half to the best of my ability. If you tread on areas that are sufficiently explained by phenomena other than God, I am obviously going to correct you.

I am, to the best of my understanding, being logical and truthful. I already warned you that I have no understanding of your manner of thinking, yet here you are chastising me for not conforming to your idea logic. You'll need to do better than this if you want me to understand your position, much less agree with it.

[popsthebuilder]

I wasn't trying to chastise you friend.  And I see what you are getting at.

My issue was that you stated clearly that the only irifutable proof of anything is found in mathematics. I agree with this. I bring up how literally everything can be exactly described with mathematics, the very thing you confesses to be utter truth, and state that to me it is evidence of intelegent design, at which point you claim math is simply a descriptor and not truth and that anything can be used as a descriptor. I agree too that anything can be language, but not to the presision of math.

I am simply trying to get you to see that you are being dishonest with yourself in an attempt to defend your opinion or bias. If your patience is wearing thin then we can continue at some other time if you like.  I did notice your comment on the conscience and commend your honesty there. You invited me to this discussion and though we didn't agree on even the format for said diacussion, I still agreed. But this was with conditions. Mutual respect, logic, and honesty.

Logic and honesty are pretty much objective and you have been reapectful so thank you for that, really. It says something for your character to be able to take consctructive critisism. I do look forward to speaking with you further, as logical conversation inthralls me, and you have shown great character in my humble opinion.

Peace

I didn't mean the disrespect for your view that I evidently unintentianally exhibited. 

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[Hijiri Byakuren (OP)]

I'm not being inconsistent. Mathematical proof is possible, but it is due to being an artificial construct that we command. Math can construct perfectly valid models that are impossible in the real world,  such as infinite division of space.

Basically, math can help determine what should be possible, but you you still have to verify those numbers in the real world before you can base a theory off of them. This is why things like dark matter are still just predictions, rather than full fledged theories.


Fair and balanced (like Fox News).

[popsthebuilder]

I'm not being inconsistent. Mathematical proof is possible, but it is due to being an artificial construct that we command. Math can construct perfectly valid models that are impossible in the real world,  such as infinite division of space.

Basically, math can help determine what should be possible, but you you still have to verify those numbers in the real world before you can base a theory off of them. This is why things like dark matter are still just predictions, rather than full fledged theories.


Fair and balanced (like Fox News).

And in the real world all observable existence can be defined exactly by mathematics

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[Hijiri Byakuren (OP)]

And in the real world all observable existence can be defined exactly by mathematics

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

I will not dispute this.


Fair and balanced (like Fox News).