Atheism

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If God is natural, we should be able to test this phenomenon. Just because we can't do it now, does not mean we can't do it in the future.

Except there is no way you can develop a test that cannot be explained away by god being omnipotent. It isn't like this is a test that just gets applied to god, you know. Physicists loathe string theory for the same reason.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except there is no way you can develop a test that cannot be explained away by god being omnipotent. It isn't like this is a test that just gets applied to god, you know. Physicists loathe string theory for the same reason.

Well, if God is natural, then I don't think God could be omnipotent. Wouldn't omnipotence by supernatural by definition?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, if God is natural, then I don't think God could be omnipotent. Wouldn't omnipotence by supernatural by definition?

Lol, unstoppable force, immovable object.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, if God is natural, then I don't think God could be omnipotent.

Sure, but most popular definitions of god are omnipotent or powerful enough for it not to matter.

The non-omnipotent gods have pretty much all been disproven by now. By their very nature those gods-of-the-gaps are very vulnerable.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wouldn't omnipotence by supernatural by definition?

There have been long debates on the subject. Some allow an omnipotent being to truly do anything, others only allow things that are logically possible which (and thus doesn't have to be supernatural).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If God is natural, we should be able to test this phenomenon. Just because we can't do it now, does not mean we can't do it in the future.

yes

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok what point are you trying to make? All I did was give a defintion of supernatural.

fair enough, my point was more that you gave a definition of supernatural that also includes a large number of natural things, just those that individuals may either not understand or personally wish to describe as supernatural

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wouldn't omnipotence by supernatural by definition?

1) why

2) this is more of an argument against omnipotence from human logic, or a reason to believe that an omnipotent god might not exist, not against the testability of such a being

Originally posted by inimalist
...
1) why

Well, lets brake it down to something simple like all knowing. That would mean God knows the exact momentum and location of an electron. That would be supernatural, because the momentum and location of an electron cannot known exactly.

Originally posted by inimalist
2) this is more of an argument against omnipotence from human logic, or a reason to believe that an omnipotent god might not exist, not against the testability of such a being

I guess, I am assuming that they are connected.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, lets brake it down to something simple like all knowing. That would mean God knows the exact momentum and location of an electron. That would be supernatural, because the momentum and location of an electron cannot known exactly.

except that if he can do it, it becomes natural

that also reflects a limit in our ability to measure electrons, not an unmutable principle of the universe

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I guess, I am assuming that they are connected.

not in theory, in practice probably

Originally posted by inimalist
except that if he can do it, it becomes natural

that also reflects a limit in our ability to measure electrons, not an unmutable principle of the universe...

I used to think that way about the uncertainty principal, but the more I read (and I'm not an expert by any means) the more I realize that it is not a reflect of our ability to measure something, but a fundamental phenomenon of nature.

ok, but then you would have to apply such a "we can't know" to any object in motion, such that a car or person.

even then, however, it is a limit of our inability to see in a 4th dimension, as location is a measure of a single instant and velocity that of a summation over time.

There is no reason to suspect that something able to do this would be acquiring the knowledge in such a way that it is not "natural", in fact, given the philosophical use of the term natural, if God is able to do it, and God exists, it is natural.

EDIT: or, in QM (apparently) motion and velocity are impossible to know, or whatever. God would have to give them these properties before he could report them.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but then you would have to apply such a "we can't know" to any object in motion, such that a car or person.

even then, however, it is a limit of our inability to see in a 4th dimension, as location is a measure of a single instant and velocity that of a summation over time.

There is no reason to suspect that something able to do this would be acquiring the knowledge in such a way that it is not "natural", in fact, given the philosophical use of the term natural, if God is able to do it, and God exists, it is natural.

You can't apply the uncertainty principal to things like cars, because they exist in an eigenstate. Now you've done it! You made me say it. Eigenstate! Don't ask me. I'll blow up. 😆

ok, but the uncertainty principle applied to QM states that not only can these things not be known at the same time, but that they in fact don't exist independantly.

God would have to give them independence to report them seperately. This isn't a limit on his power, it is a limit on how we, as humans, define the variables momentum and location. To define the state of an electron by those anthropic variables, he would have to give those independant properties to the electron.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but the uncertainty principle applied to QM states that not only can these things not be known at the same time, but that they in fact don't exist independantly.

God would have to give them independence to report them seperately. This isn't a limit on his power, it is a limit on how we, as humans, define the variables momentum and location. To define the state of an electron by those anthropic variables, he would have to give those independant properties to the electron.

Hmmmm In a way, we are talking about the unstoppable object that hits an unmovable object. You would have to change the laws of physics to have an unstoppable and unmovable object to begin with. A natural God would have to change the laws of physics to achieve this knowledge. Under the idea that if something happens, it is then natural, there is no way to know if a natural God could naturally change the laws of physics. Perhaps the problem is with the assumption that if something happens that it is then natural. I do not know.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hmmmm In a way, we are talking about the unstoppable object that hits an unmovable object. You would have to change the laws of physics to have an unstoppable and unmovable object to begin with. A natural God would have to change the laws of physics to achieve this knowledge. Under the idea that if something happens, it is then natural, there is no way to know if a natural God could naturally change the laws of physics. Perhaps the problem is with the assumption that if something happens that it is then natural. I do not know.

in a purely theoretical sense, there is no reason to assume that the laws of physics are immutable. If a God is changing the laws of physics to report values to humans, then the laws of physics have been changed naturally, under whatever "power" god has, as in, there is a connection (somehow) between the motivation in God to do something, and it occuring. That is the natural mechanism.

It would, in practice, be, probably, impossible to test such a being, especially if it were not interested in helping us test it, but there still must be some mechanism through which God interacts with the world. Even if god's omnipotence would give it the ability to change this mechanism at a whim.

Originally posted by inimalist
in a purely theoretical sense, there is no reason to assume that the laws of physics are immutable. If a God is changing the laws of physics to report values to humans, then the laws of physics have been changed naturally, under whatever "power" god has, as in, there is a connection (somehow) between the motivation in God to do something, and it occuring. That is the natural mechanism.

It would, in practice, be, probably, impossible to test such a being, especially if it were not interested in helping us test it, but there still must be some mechanism through which God interacts with the world. Even if god's omnipotence would give it the ability to change this mechanism at a whim.

Ok, it would be impossible for us to test this idea, but it would not be impossible to test this by a natural God.

It does not matter if we can test this, but rather if can be tested, and I think it can. Even if that means it can only be tested by this natural God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hmmmm In a way, we are talking about the unstoppable object that hits an unmovable object. You would have to change the laws of physics to have an unstoppable and unmovable object to begin with. A natural God would have to change the laws of physics to achieve this knowledge. Under the idea that if something happens, it is then natural, there is no way to know if a natural God could naturally change the laws of physics. Perhaps the problem is with the assumption that if something happens that it is then natural. I do not know.

Yeah, right you don't read my posts. 😛

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok, it would be impossible for us to test this idea, but it would not be impossible to test this by a natural God.

It does not matter if we can test this, but rather if can be tested, and I think it can. Even if that means it can only be tested by this natural God.

I don't know that it would be impossible for us to test, just that we would need to have a co-operative God.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know that it would be impossible for us to test, just that we would need to have a co-operative God.

😂 Not only have we created a natural God to advance this conversation, but now we have a co-operative natural God. We might as well, have a co-operative super advanced alien race to take the place of this God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😂 Not only have we created a natural God to advance this conversation, but now we have a co-operative natural God. We might as well, have a co-operative super advanced alien race to take the place of this God.

well, you can't do real tests on unco-operative people, so why would God be any different

and I think you are making too much of this "natural" god thing

all people who believe in God are proposing a natural God. Natural and Supernatural, in a philosophy of science sense, are not opposites, something isn't either/or. If there is a mechanism through which something occurs, it is natural. I don't even know how something which exists would qualify as supernatural, again, in terms of philosophy of science.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, you can't do real tests on unco-operative people, so why would God be any different

and I think you are making too much of this "natural" god thing

all people who believe in God are proposing a natural God. Natural and Supernatural, in a philosophy of science sense, are not opposites, something isn't either/or. If there is a mechanism through which something occurs, it is natural. I don't even know how something which exists would qualify as supernatural, again, in terms of philosophy of science.

How did we get so far away from Atheism? 😕

to be honest, philosophy of science and atheism are incredibly related in the way I understand both.

EDIT: it is exactly questions like those we are discussing that brought me to, and reinforce to me, that there is almost certainly no God.