One vs. Two vs. Many
Posted By: fastlane69
One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 14:21
There are a lot of people that believe that science can be used to prove OR disprove the exsistence of a god. I'm not here to debate that issue, but rather insprired by a comment on another thread, I issuse a unique challenge:
Prove or Disprove the exsistence of ONE GOD.
This challenge is NOT to show that there is or isn't a god; Rather, we start with the Axiom that god exsists and confirm -- as the judeomuslimchristians believe -- that there is only one and not many... or not.
This is, after all, what we do in Science. We put many competing theories against each other and only the one that is most valid under the greatest number of trials is the one that is believed to be "true". So let's scientifically pit the One god theory vs. the Many gods theory and see what happens.
Posted By: ROMAC
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 14:24
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 14:32
That post was actually my inspiration.
But it is not what I'm looking for in this thread. In that post, you CONCLUDE from your own facts and opinions three things: god doesn't exist, god is amoral, god is not all powerful.
This is not the same as what I'm asking here.
I'm conceding that god exists as my axiomatic foundation. Then, I'm asking to show that only one god exists or many exist. And I'm asking to do it in the scientific way that many are using to show that god does exist.
Not quite the same.
Posted By: AndersA
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 14:46
Quote:
[...]I'm conceding that god exists as my axiomatic foundation.[...]
That is not a very meaningful axiom on it's own. Any theorem based on that is also based on the meaning of the term god. Depending on the properties god have you will be able to prove that there is one god or many.
The only meaningful theorem derivable from your axiom is that at least something exists
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 14:55
An axiom is exactly that which is unprovable, but taken as the foundation to start a proof.
Take whatever definition of god you wish, however unprovable or unique, assume he/she/they exist and go.
Posted By: jcl
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 15:21
This is an interesting proposal, although I would suppose that the definition of omnipotence excludes the possibility that more than one God exists.
However, you're not limited to integers when counting the number of Gods. It's entirely possible that there is only half a God. For instance, the Hottentots believe in the God Haiuri, which is only half-existing (not to be confused with a demi-god!).
Posted By: AndersA
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 15:24
I know perfectly well what an axiom is and I still don't think your "god exists" axiom is useful for anything than stating that "something exists". You have to add more axioms.
You may prove many things if you add different axioms:
1)
Ok. I add the axiom A = "for all a,b if a is god and b is god, then a = b". From that it is trivial to derive the theorem "there is only one that is god".
2)
Now instead of the axiom A, I add the axiom B = not A. From that it's trivial to derive the theorem "there may be two or many that are god"
3)
Let's check what happens if we add A and B. Well from that you can derive a contradiction and it's a logic truth that from a contradiction everything can be derived. One example is the theorem "there is no god".
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 15:47
Quote:
I know perfectly well what an axiom is and I still don't think your "god exists" axiom is useful for anything than stating that "something exists".
You are missing the point then for that is the ONLY thing that axiom is meant to show: that something exists and then use that as a foundation for further investigation as to HOW MANY somethings there are.
Quote:
Ok. I add the axiom A = "for all a,b if a is god and b is god, then a = b". From that it is trivial to derive the theorem "there is only one that is god".[/quopte]
You've proven nothing. Your axiom STARTS with the idea that a is the same god as b. You've derived nothing and merely proved state your axiom as your conclusion.
All the same, a more useful proof would look like:
a = god1
b = god2
[...]
therefore either a=b (and there is one god) or A DNE B (and there are at least two gods). It's the [...] that you skipped over that I'm mostly interested in.
If we find the latter, we would expand thusly
a = god1
b = god2
c = god3
[...]
therefore either a=b DNE c or a=c DNE b or b=c DNE a (and there are only two gods) or a DNE b DNE c (and there are at least 3 gods).
Again, it's the [...] that is interesting to me, whether it be from science or logic.
Posted By: AndersA
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 16:31
Quote:
Quote:
I know perfectly well what an axiom is and I still don't think your "god exists" axiom is useful for anything than stating that "something exists".
You are missing the point then for that is the ONLY thing that axiom is meant to show: that something exists and then use that as a foundation for further investigation as to HOW MANY somethings there are[...]
I think you're wrong and that my previous post should make perfect sense to someone versed in standard logic.
Your "proof" is based on god being an object, but that is a way to strong conclusion to draw from the axiom "god exists". A reasonable interpretation of your axiom is that there is a predicate R(x) = "x has the property good" and that there exists at least one x for which R(x). In that language my first axiom A may be formally written as "(x)(y)(R(x) & R(y) --> x=y)".
Posted By: ICEman
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 16:55
I think what he is saying is that, assuming that God(s) exist as the given for this discussion (which means that you will have a hard time stomaching this discussion and an even harder time contributing if you dont believe in one at all)
BUT...here is my logic for the monotheistic school of thought.
It's possible that many Gods can have existed, but.. to me, the creation of a universe what looks a certain way, is composed of black space, with normal matter, and logical math and science... is the result of one perspective.
Take the universe as a game. If you have more than one designer, typically the game comes out looking like it was made with the ideas of several designers. Very seldom do they agree or reach commonalities about one specific way the game looks or plays..and I believe our universe was made by one specific vision, and not the visions of many, otherwise it would work as tho it were designed by several beings with different ideas of how it should work.
It's a very weak argument, but I think the inability to create with concensus on the design rules out multiple creators..and had the reached a concensus, it wouldve been redundant to use multiple Gods with the same level of power to make the agreed upon design.
Posted By: AndersA
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 18:26
Quote:
I think what he is saying is that, assuming that God(s) exist as the given for this discussion (which means that you will have a hard time stomaching this discussion and an even harder time contributing if you dont believe in one at all)
You may be right and you probably are, but in that case it's strange that he wants this discussion to from the point of view of science and/or logic.
I have given him a perfectly reasonable logic answer and natural science is simply not about religion of any kind so I really don't see why he isn't happy with my answer 
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 18:58
It's not that I'm unhappy with your answer; its just that it's not an answer at all!!
Quote:
Your "proof" is based on god being an object, but that is a way to strong conclusion to draw from the axiom "god exists".
I don't know what you are driving at, but I have offered no "proof", merely an axiomatic beginning for people to start their proofs.
Furthermore, if something exists, then yes, it is an object. It is exactly this foundation that I want people to build upon "Assume god exists and thus is an object; can you prove that only one god-object exists?"
Quote:
A reasonable interpretation of your axiom is that there is a predicate R(x) = "x has the property good" and that there exists at least one x for which R(x)
Reasonable only to you. I have made no moral statements in this thread. Therefore, whether x= good or evil is irrelevant.
Unless this is a syntax error and you meant "x has the property god"…
Quote:
(x)(y)(R(x) & R(y) --> x=y
This is nonsense; worse, nonsense wrapped in logical symbols. Assuming that R(x) is the property of "good" and R(y) is the property of another "good" (assuming no syntax error and that you mean that different gods do different goods), then how do you propose that the boolean AND combination leads to both goods being the same (x=y) and what does this have to do with god.
Assuming a syntax error, then it’s the same: how does a Boolean AND lead to x=y? You are doing the same thing you did in your first proof and offering no concrete evidence that x=y.
Tell you what, how about we stick to my original post and rely on scientific proof based on that axiom from now on, shall we?
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 19:01
Quote:
although I would suppose that the definition of omnipotence excludes the possibility that more than one God exists.
If each god is only omnipotent within their own realm, this would not be so.
Consider if you will Newtonian vs. Relativistic physics... each is inviolate in their respective realms (low v: newton; high v: relativity) but irrelevant in the other realm (newton doesn't apply at v~c and relativity doesn't apply at V<<c)
Quote:
It's a very weak argument, but I think the inability to create with concensus on the design rules out multiple creators..and had the reached a concensus, it wouldve been redundant to use multiple Gods with the same level of power to make the agreed upon design.
Again, one could envision a "team" of gods, each responsible for their own realm and nothing more. Polytheistic religions do this all the time ascribing one god to one effect (lightning rain earth moon, etc)
Quote:
It's entirely possible that there is only half a God
now that's just messed up! 
Posted By: Marco_Grubert
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 20:56
Quote:
relativity doesn't apply at V<<c
It doesn't ? I was thinking about Lorentz-Transformations where your term approaches 0 when v<<c. But nevertheless special relativity would still apply, only it would be hard to measure.
Quote:
It's a very weak argument, but I think the inability to create with concensus on the design rules out multiple creators..and had the reached a concensus, it wouldve been redundant to use multiple Gods with the same level of power to make the agreed upon design.
I think airplanes are very well designed given dozens if not hundreds of designers involved in the process. You are saying that a consensus would make other gods redundant- true, but that does not make them less likely.
@fastlane: for this to make any sense whatsoever, could you please give your complete definition of "god" ?
Posted By: Scramasax
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 21:16
God exists, if defined as the set that contains all the sub sets of reality. Other aspects of God's existence are up for debate.
Posted By: AndersA
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 22:51
Quote:
It's not that I'm unhappy with your answer; its just that it's not an answer at all!!
It is an answer, but obviously you don't appreciate it.
Quote:
Quote:
(x)(y)(R(x) & R(y) --> x=y)
This is nonsense; worse, nonsense wrapped in logical symbols.
It makes perfectly sense if you understand logic. (x)(y) stands for "for all x and for all y".
Quote:
Assuming a syntax error, then it’s the same: how does a Boolean AND lead to x=y? You are doing the same thing you did in your first proof and offering no concrete evidence that x=y.
Of course I don't. As I have told you, this is my axiom. From my axiom together with yours, it is simple to prove that there is one and only one god. As I have already said, if you add other axioms, you may show that there are several gods or no god at all. You talk about proofs, but you don't like me to talk about logic which is the mother of proof theory. Why is that?
Quote:
Tell you what, how about we stick to my original post and rely on scientific proof based on that axiom from now on, shall we?
There is no such thing as a scientific proof. Science doesn't do proofs; logic and math do proofs, but in order to have something meaningful to prove you need more than your "god exists" axiom. You may like it or not, but this is the case anyway.
Posted By: AndersA
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 23:00
Quote:
Consider if you will Newtonian vs. Relativistic physics... each is inviolate in their respective realms (low v: newton; high v: relativity) but irrelevant in the other realm (newton doesn't apply at v~c and relativity doesn't apply at V<<c)
This is not true. Classical physics is indeed less accurate the higher the v, but relativity is always more accurate than classical physics no matter what v you've got.
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 23:32
Quote:
It doesn't ? I was thinking about Lorentz-Transformations where your term approaches 0 when v<<c. But nevertheless special relativity would still apply, only it would be hard to measure.
Consider the limit to this statement... relativity doesn't apply to an object at REST with it's environment yet Newtonian Physics does. An object at rest with it's environment would experience neither time dialation nor length contraction, the hallmarks of relativity.
Quote:
fastlane: for this to make any sense whatsoever, could you please give your complete definition of "god" ?
Jeesh, no tall order there.
Let's take a minimialist approach: God is a being more powerful than any human that cannot be seen by conventional means (ie EM radiation) and has a lifetime on the order of the lifetime of the universe.
Can we work with that?
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/15/06 23:43
Quote:
You talk about proofs, but you don't like me to talk about logic which is the mother of proof theory. Why is that?
Because if you read my original thread, I'm asking for scientific style proofs, not meta-physical logical proofs.
Quote:
From my axiom together with yours, it is simple to prove that there is one and only one god.
I still don't see how this is anything but circular logic: starting with the premise that there is only one god, I can prove that there is only one god. Let's expand your axiom
(x)(y)(R(x) & R(y) --> x=y)
For all x and y, where x is " the property of being god" and y is "the property of being another god". We then create the Predicates R(x) and R(y) such that this is true in at least one case and now, combining both properties R(x) and R(y) with a boolean AND, we show that x=y.
How is this anything but circular logic? I'm asking seriously; my last logic course was ages ago.
Quote:
There is no such thing as a scientific proof. Science doesn't do proofs; logic and math do proofs
ROFL. You're a mathematician, aren't you?
We have a "different" way of proving things than philosophers and mathematicians: it's called the scientific method. And it has successfully "proven" many things.
Posted By: ICEman
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/16/06 00:42
Like I said, I really can't come up with a good argument to refute the possiblity of multiple gods. I think I've actually been stumped :/.
My only possible argument is that.. creative differences might've stifled the universe's creation as a normal, logical universe.. just like they do when we develop games.. but then it's not impossible for agreements to be reached as to how the game should be.. so I suppose the same is true of any creative team project including our universe.
I don't believe in "Gods"...that is I don't think that anything which violates the physical universe can exist.. I don't believe in magic, or magical things.. but I do believe someone or several someones are responsible for creating the universe that is.
I guess there really is no concrete way to be sure.. this does sort of get me to thinking.. ponderance wise.. (I dont really depend on a God to live my life or to feed me what is right and wrong to do..but it IS interesting food for thought.)
Posted By: Marco_Grubert
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/16/06 01:05
Quote:
Consider the limit to this statement... relativity doesn't apply to an object at REST with it's environment yet Newtonian Physics does. An object at rest with it's environment would experience neither time dialation nor length contraction, the hallmarks of relativity.
Oh come on, now you are nitpicking. What if the object moves at speed epsilon? Does Newtonian physics only apply to resting objects then ?
Quote:
Let's take a minimialist approach: God is a being more powerful than any human that cannot be seen by conventional means (ie EM radiation) and has a lifetime on the order of the lifetime of the universe.
Sounds good, but the more minimalist the definition the harder it will be to make any inferences.
@AndersA:
Quote:
As I have already said, if you add other axioms, you may show that there are several gods or no god at all. You talk about proofs, but you don't like me to talk about logic which is the mother of proof theory.
Nothing wrong with proofs, but you can only come to a valid conclusion if you start with valid axioms. Borrowing your notations, fastlane made the following statements:
1) R(x) := x is a god and
2) x
The question then is what is required to show that either
(x).(y).R(x) ^ R(y) -> x==y or
(x).(y).R(x) ^ R(y) -> x!=y
It comes down to figuring out what the existence of one or many gods entails, i.e. what other predicates can we deduce from x ^ R(x) ? The answer to this lies outside of predicate logic.
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/16/06 02:57
Quote:
Oh come on, now you are nitpicking. What if the object moves at speed epsilon? Does Newtonian physics only apply to resting objects then ?
Fine, if you want to nitpick, gamma = 1.0000000000000555555555555601852 if you are traveling at 100 m/s and thus yes, if you need HIGH precision measurements (up to 14 decimal places)you would need to use relativity (such as GPS and Nerd Conventions). But under every other common day application, we would be well served by using the Newtonian approximation.
How about a better example: the physics inside an atoms nucleus and the physics outside. Inside is domincated by SU(3) gluons, outside it's an SU(2) x U(1) world; each "omnicient" in their own realm but invalid in the other.
Quote:
Sounds good, but the more minimalist the definition the harder it will be to make any inferences.
But I encourage people to add to the minimal definition and work from there. After all, this is not a competative exercise, it's not about "my god" versus "your god" but rather to see if you can come up with a proof or disproof of the One vs. Many by any means possible
Posted By: AndersA
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/16/06 07:13
Quote:
@AndersA:
Quote:
As I have already said, if you add other axioms, you may show that there are several gods or no god at all. You talk about proofs, but you don't like me to talk about logic which is the mother of proof theory.
Nothing wrong with proofs, but you can only come to a valid conclusion if you start with valid axioms.
My point exactly. And the axiom "god exists" is neither more nor less valid than any of mine.
Quote:
Borrowing your notations, fastlane made the following statements:
1) R(x) := x is a god and
2) x
The question then is what is required to show that either
(x).(y).R(x) ^ R(y) -> x==y or
(x).(y).R(x) ^ R(y) -> x!=y
Also true, but my point is that this is logically impossible without a definition for the property god. In other words, you have to add more axioms which I did. I probably didn't add the same axioms that fastlane would have, but I added some at least
Quote:
It comes down to figuring out what the existence of one or many gods entails, i.e. what other predicates can we deduce from x ^ R(x) ? The answer to this lies outside of predicate logic.
And again you are right and the consequence is that there is no proof.
Posted By: AndersA
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/16/06 07:28
Quote:
Quote:
There is no such thing as a scientific proof. Science doesn't do proofs; logic and math do proofs
ROFL. You're a mathematician, aren't you?
We have a "different" way of proving things than philosophers and mathematicians: it's called the scientific method. And it has successfully "proven" many things.
No I'm a physicist and that's why I know that the scientific method is the contrary to proving things, rather.
To be correct, the scientific method has been unsuccessful in disproving many things. These things, not yet disproved, are what we call knowledge.
Logic do proofs, science doesn't.
Science might give you an indication of whether there seems to be no, one or several gods, but then you have to give us something to fail to disprove.
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/16/06 14:47
Quote:
No I'm a physicist
What field, degree, and school?
What was your dissertation on?
What do you do now?
I'll address your perspective of the Scientific Method after these answers... I need a little background to understand where you are coming from.
Posted By: AndersA
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/16/06 17:11
Quote:
What field, degree, and school?
What was your dissertation on?
What do you do now?
I'll address your perspective of the Scientific Method after these answers... I need a little background to understand where you are coming from.
I've just got a masters degree, but you don't even need that in order to know that what I wrote is true. Maybe you will try to turn this into a competition about who went to the finest schools, but that will never happen. The argument is what counts, not who is giving them.
So if you actually have an example where knowledge has been found in science by means of a proof, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/16/06 17:39
I know this is way OT, but this issue must be addressed.
I'm just confused since by your definition...
Quote:
I know that the scientific method is the contrary to proving things, rather.
To be correct, the scientific method has been unsuccessful in disproving many things. These things, not yet disproved, are what we call knowledge.
...the scientific method has been unsuccessful at disproving the existence of god. Therefore, since god has not been disproved we call god knowledge
Doesn't make much sense to me.
Quote:
So if you actually have an example where knowledge has been found in science by means of a proof, I'd be interested in seeing it.
The problem I see is that you limiting your definition of "proof" to the mathematical/logical sense (hence my original assertion that you were a mathematician). There are many other ways to prove things which is why I bring up the Scientific Method. Proof is merely the steps taken to affirm that your original hypothesis is true. Hence, experiements are the way that scientist find proof and it is these kinds of proof, experiments, that I'm after in this thread (since, as I explained in the beginning, people claim that science can be used in this theological manner)
Example: neutrinos.
In order to explain the misssing energy in beta decay, Pauli postulated the existance of neutrinos. This was pure theory based on the principle of Energy Conseration. In order to prove that his assertion was right, experiments were later performed that fit what Pauli described exactly... in short, experiments PROVED theory.
What was your dissertaion on? Still curious...
Posted By: AndersA
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/16/06 19:10
Quote:
...the scientific method has been unsuccessful at disproving the existence of god. Therefore, since god has not been disproved we call god knowledge
If you know anything about science, you should also know that there has to be a falsifiable hypothesis about the entity you'd like to build knowledge from. So I guess first you'll have to present such a hypothesis.
Quote:
Quote:
So if you actually have an example where knowledge has been found in science by means of a proof, I'd be interested in seeing it.
The problem I see is that you limiting your definition of "proof" to the mathematical/logical sense (hence my original assertion that you were a mathematician). There are many other ways to prove things which is why I bring up the Scientific Method. Proof is merely the steps taken to affirm that your original hypothesis is true.
Exactly. So maybe you would care to give me an example of a hypothesis that science actually says is the truth. Only the layman think that the physical theories actually says anything about how it actually is in reality. A true scientist realizes that theories are just models of how it could be. If it actually is true, you will never know so it's no point in trying to prove it.
Quote:
Example: neutrinos. [...]
in short, experiments PROVED theory.
Of course not. In order to actually prove a hypothesis by means of experiments, you will have to perform every possible experiment even remotely related to that hypothesis, infinitely many times and continue for ever and ever. Not very practical and that's why you don't do proofs in science.
Since you continue to try to turn this into a competition about who went to the finest schools, I guess you went to what you think is the finest of them all and that you hold at least a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. In my book that doesn't matter since I judge you from your arguments and not from who you are or what fancy degrees you might have.
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/16/06 20:09
Suffice it to say that I do know "a little" about science, that no where in my posts did I mention that "science = truth", that physics experiments are not like the life science experiements that "require" a null hypothesis, and that science has an established track record of proving things -- unless you are here to tell me my collegues and I that neutrinos haven't been proven... maybe that was your dissertation?
I agree wholeheartedly that it's the arguement that matters and since I find your arguments to be naive from a professional scientific viewpoint and you perceive my curiosity as to your scientific background as an attempt at a pissing contest, I shall leave your arguements alone to sink or swim as others see fit.
I peacefully bow out from any further engagement with you, Master Anders.
This arguement is futile. It's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, no matter what axioms you begin with or what logic you use. If I postulate that there is an invisible, massless clown in the sky, how you can prove or disprove it?
However, modern science has shown that there while there is much evidence of natural processes, directed by physical laws and forces, there is no evidence at all for an intelligent guiding power. This is of course not proof, but for a rational person, it is good enough.
Posted By: AndersA
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/16/06 23:31
Quote:
unless you are here to tell me my collegues and I that neutrinos haven't been proven...
I don't know who your colleagues are and neither do I care, as long as they don't do science AND believe that the existence of neutrinos have been proved in any meaningful way. If they do, then I'm a bit worried because that is not serious science. Science is not about proofs...
What if someone someday makes a discovery that refutes the model for the neutrino as it is thought of today. Maybe not all that probable, but still perfectly possible. Was it still a proof then? Of course not! Something even potentially fallible is not based on proof.
Or are your position maybe that you and your colleagues already have all the answers and that no one will ever be able to refute anything as beautiful as the Standard Model? Personally, however, I'm not a religious believer in science as you and your colleagues might be.
Since you, for some unknown reason, try to ridicule me and since some other members in this particular forum maybe aren't very familiar with science, I'd feel more comfortable if I could show them that I'm not alone thinking the way I do. I cut the following from Wikipedia:
Quote:
Scientific method does not aim to give an ultimate answer. Its iterative and recursive nature implies that it will never come to an end, so any answer it gives is provisional. Hence it cannot prove or verify anything in a strong sense. However, if a theory passed many experimental tests without being disproved, it is usually considered superior to any theory that has not yet been put to a test.
It's not from a fancy book on relativistic quantum gauge field theory so maybe you and maybe some of your colleagues will disrespect it as you disrespect me.
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/17/06 00:44
We realize this is all verbal masturbation, Matt. I just thought this would be a lot more fun than the usual "my god exists"/"no he doesn't" word play.
The challenge remains open to any that would use science in a theological context. Here is an experiments that you can use to prove the many god hypothesis:
Take the cancer victem scenerio. Pray to different gods. If they
consistently get better, then this is evidence of multiple gods. After all, at least in christianity, it is a big no-no to put one god above another and thus by theological tenets if there is
consistent healing by appeasing to different deitys, then one can surmise that different gods are in charge.
Now this same experiement can also be used to validate the one-god hypothesis... if only one group gets
consistently better and that one group is always under one god, we can infer that this is the correct deity.
While I'm not suggesting that anyone actually set this experiment up (though that would be AWESOME), I think we could find internet/book/reference evidence from different deities to show which of the above is true.
My personal Hypothesis?
1) There is no evidence of
consistent healing by any religion.
2) Where there is
consistent healing (such as the "miracle" sites), we see these crop up in every religion thus indicating that there are either many gods or that another force is at work (say, the human psyche for example).
Play or don't. Like any other thread, if you don't want to play, butt out and let it die a natural death. You just come off as pricks by
consistently coming in and saying nothing more than "this is stupid". Yes, we know, we get it, it's stupid, it's pointless, move on Matt.
Quote:
Take the cancer victem scenerio. Pray to different gods. If they consistently get better, then this is evidence of multiple gods
No its not. This is only a statistical anomaly. It could be explained by chance, various biological factors, etc. Something like this says nothing about anything supernatural.
It is a capital mistake to try to use science to rationalize religious or supernatural phenomenon. Theology is not science, and science has nothing to say on theology.
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/17/06 15:36
Keyword: Consistently. It is also a "statistical anomaly" that every time I take aspirin, my headache goes away, yet in science we ascribe such strong corrolations to causality if is consistently occurs. Every time a large sample size of people take a drug, effect A occurs, then the drug is causing effect A. Likewise if a large sample size of people gets cured (Effect A) with no other influence but prayer (Drug), then the natural conclusion is the the Drug (prayer) is causing the effect (cure).
I do agree with you that as far as I know, any reports of cures have been statistically insignificant. However, in the fairness of discussion, I want to find out if anyone has other "statistics".
Since only nay-sayers are contributing to this thread, I would draw the conclusion that in fact the answer is "No" and that proving one vs. many gods is the same (if not worse) than trying to prove no vs. a god.
in the case of drugs we are using the scientific method. The drug is a real substance, and it's effects can be tested.
In the case of faith healing, etc, the 'god' is a non-real entity, in other words, it cant be seen, felt, tested, or analyzed. There is no means to ensure that poeple are really praying to a god, or that the god will pay attention. No matter how consistently poeple may be healed, science has to look for natural explanations. Gods are not an option.
So even if 1000/1000 poeple prayed to god/gods and were healed, science must regard this as either a statistical anomaly, or a real correlation relating to something naturalistic, such as genetics, physiology, etc. In niether case can the prayer be considered causal.
Posted By: NITRO777
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/17/06 21:29
Quote:
In the case of faith healing, etc, the 'god' is a non-real entity, in other words, it cant be seen, felt, tested, or analyzed.
Well science cannot see, feel or otherwise analyse whether or not you have a personality...does that mean your personality is a non-real entity?
Quote:
So even if 1000/1000 poeple prayed to god/gods and were healed, science must regard this as either a statistical anomaly, or a real correlation relating to something naturalistic, such as genetics, physiology, etc
Seriously though. There have been X-Rays showing cancers and after prayer the cancers are no longer found on the X-Ray, is that enough of an observable fact for you?
Posted By: fastlane69
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/17/06 22:03
Quote:
Seriously though. There have been X-Rays showing cancers and after prayer the cancers are no longer found on the X-Ray, is that enough of an observable fact for you?
It is, but in order to be a real fact it has to be reproduceable (ie everytime a prayer is made, the cancer is cured) and causal (ie everytime a prayer is NOT made, the cancer stays).
Can you provide evidence of this in Christianity?
Can other provide evidence of this in other faiths?
Posted By: Grimber
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/17/06 22:18
You don;t need logic, math or scientific methodology to prove that IF a god exists than many exists.
what do you need for proof? the same proof those that beileve in a god use.
Just like christain useage of science to "prove" god, they also tend to pick and choose what they find as acceptable for 'holy scripture'. In otherwords if it dosn't conform to thier pre concieved notion(s) of thier faith then it isn't 'cannon' ( this is done with any and all 'holy scriptures' and teh bible itself)
So lets look at one translated document that was 'rejected' by christans as not being cannon though other documents found with it were (which these documents make up the Qumran, which much of the Old testiment is derived from)
Sabbath scroll of sacrifice
Quote:
30. By the instructor. Song of the sacrifice of the seventh Sabbath on the sixteenth of the month. Praise the God of the lofty heights, O you lofty ones among all the
31. elim of knowledge. Let the holiest of the godlike ones sanctify the King of glory who sanctifies by holiness all His holy ones. O you chiefs of the praises of
32. all the godlike beings, praise the splendidly [pr]aiseworthy God. For in the splendor of praise is the glory of His realm. From it (comes) the praises of all
33. the godlike ones together with the splendor of all [His] maj[esty. And] exalt his exaltedness to exalted heaven, you most godlike ones of the lofty elim, and (exalt) His glorious divinity above
34. all the lofty heights. For H[e is God of gods] of all the chiefs of the heights of heaven and King of ki[ngs] of all the eternal councils. (by the intention of)
35. (His knowledge) At the words of His mouth come into being [all the lofty angels]; at the utterance of His lips all the eternal spirits; [by the in]tention of His knowledge all His creatures
36. in their undertakings. Sing with joy, you who rejoice [in His knowledge with] rejoicing among the wondrous godlike beings. And chant His glory with the tongue of all who chant with knowledge; and (chant) His wonderful songs of joy
37. with the mouth of all who chant [of Him. For He is] God of all who rejoice {in knowledge} forever and Judge in His power of all the spirits of understanding.
now christans would try to state that the referances to godlike beings would be referancing angels, untill you reach line 35. God being the king of godlike beings then angels are brought into being by his word.
Its understandable why christan scholars would want to discredit, dismiss, reject, even 'edit it'. documents such as this as it totaly controdicts the basic foundation thier religion of a single god. So christain 'scholars' will enevitable put thier anlytical spin on each and ever passage of thier own 'holy scripture' 'word of god' to make it fit either their supposed faith or thier moral/ethical/political ideals. And if they can't then its declaired 'non scripture'
Many such documents point to that there was a war in heaven among godlike beings
and in the end 'God' accended to the throne. Similar to many past mythologic religions which had power struggles. one god would assume rule by force then by edict make it a crime/sin to worship any other gods. "Thou shalt not have any other god BEFORE me"
Intresting enough these are the same sort of things the radical factions of the islam/muslim communities ( which are the minority of muslims/islamics) do to thier own religion that make muslims in general look bad. Manupulation of the words of thier faith to justify thier actions.
And christains behave as if they are better. ha.
Quote:
Well science cannot see, feel or otherwise analyse whether or not you have a personality...does that mean your personality is a non-real entity?
Indeed, personality is a word we use to describe behavior, so it is not a real entity. You are confusing abstract ideas with concrete phenomenon.
Quote:
There have been X-Rays showing cancers and after prayer the cancers are no longer found on the X-Ray, is that enough of an observable fact for you?
Yes it's an observable phenomenon. But since science is concerned with the material world, we have to look elsewhere for the cause. You are confusing correlations with causes. Science by definition can only seek natural explanations, and is therefore irreconcileable with the supernatural. Science can neither study, prove the existence of, nor refute supernatural phenomenon.
Religion is by definition the belief in the supernatural, and is thus not the realm of science--and never the twain shall meet. The medieval synthesis is long dead.
If 1000/1000 cancer patients prayed and were healed, it is a meaningless correllation.
Posted By: NITRO777
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/17/06 23:06
Quote:
personality is a word we use to describe behavior
I think you might have it backwards,in a sense behavior is the word we use to describe personality isnt it? We behave according to our personality traits. Our personality, will, mind and emotions drive our physical bodies, not the other way around.
As fastlane will surely confirm, the physical universe is operating under the influence of physical law such as gravity. Why does gravity work? Science doesnt understand why gravity works, it only measures the behavior of the phenomenon.
Science is the perfect way to analyze how things work, science only fails when it trys to understand why things work. That is the precise reason why idiotic theories like evolution were born or ridiculous parallel universes; because science is trying to figure out why we are here instead of simply observing the world around us(which is its true function)
Posted By: NITRO777
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/17/06 23:41
@Fastlane
From a philosophical standpoint the only thing that would prove the existence of one God instead of many gods, providing that it was accepted that God exists...is uniqueness.
Jesus is only guy who ever declared that He was the Singular Almighty God. That might sound ridiculously simple, but it true. They all claimed to be prophets(Muhammed, Buddha, Confuscious, Moses), but Jesus proclaimed that not only was there a God, but your looking at Him.
He also, in addition to declaring Himself God spoke definateively to the exclusion of all other gods. He declared Himself the Way, and the ONLY (singular) way. If there was a God (and this postualation assumes there is) then it is logical that God would indeed exclude all others, so He behaved the way God would, not because He wouldnt tolerate other religion and other gods, but simply becauswe He was the only one, and it was the simple truth to declare Himself thus.
Also, He is the only one who gave His life for mankind. The message of God was to feed His body to the world, and give His blood. This is the only God who ever did this, and it is historically true that He hung on the cross.
His greatest proof of divinity was His ressurrection from the dead, because no human can do that. And we witnessed it.
You might not accept the testimony of those saw Him rise from the dead with their own eyes, maybe it is scientifically unproveable, but it doesnt make it any less true.
There. You have it.
I am the Single Almighty God. And i will mess you up.
Posted By: NITRO777
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/18/06 00:08
I doubt it, but I have considered that you might be the
anti-christ , so maybe I better watch out indeed.
Posted By: mpdeveloper_B
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/18/06 04:23
@matt:....okaaaaaaaaay strange...
Posted By: ICEman
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/18/06 04:40
I've been toying with the notion that I might be the antichrist, actually..
Not really onuh those things one wants to know about themselves.. altho I have never been dead for days and lived again...sooo.. and wouldnt wanna be thought of as God..soo ..I dunno.
Quote:
@Fastlane
From a philosophical standpoint the only thing that would prove the existence of one God instead of many gods, providing that it was accepted that God exists...is uniqueness.
Jesus is only guy who ever declared that He was the Singular Almighty God. That might sound ridiculously simple, but it true. They all claimed to be prophets(Muhammed, Buddha, Confuscious, Moses), but Jesus proclaimed that not only was there a God, but your looking at Him.
He also, in addition to declaring Himself God spoke definateively to the exclusion of all other gods. He declared Himself the Way, and the ONLY (singular) way. If there was a God (and this postualation assumes there is) then it is logical that God would indeed exclude all others, so He behaved the way God would, not because He wouldnt tolerate other religion and other gods, but simply becauswe He was the only one, and it was the simple truth to declare Himself thus.
Also, He is the only one who gave His life for mankind. The message of God was to feed His body to the world, and give His blood. This is the only God who ever did this, and it is historically true that He hung on the cross.
His greatest proof of divinity was His ressurrection from the dead, because no human can do that. And we witnessed it.
You might not accept the testimony of those saw Him rise from the dead with their own eyes, maybe it is scientifically unproveable, but it doesnt make it any less true.
There. You have it.
Why do you believe any of this happened?
Posted By: NITRO777
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/18/06 13:36
Quote:
Why do you believe any of this happened?
I dont know, I think it is just instinctual, an inherent tendency. Why do you doubt it?
Quote:
Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.
There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong. Even a thief gets upset and feels wronged when someone steals from him. If someone violently grabs a child from a family and rapes that child, there is an anger and revulsion and a rage to confront that act as evil, regardless of the culture. Where did we get this sense of wrongness? How do we explain a universal law in the conscience of all people that says murder for fun is wrong?
And in areas like courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty and compassion, where did these come from? If people are merely products of physical evolution, "survival of the fittest," why do we sacrifice for each other? Where did we get this inner sense of right and wrong?
The above is actually a quote from someone else, it is related to what I consider an inner conscience and an inner tendency to believe, which helps answer your question.
If you look at the facts objectively, and if you know anything about people, debates and arguments you will understand that we form arguments based upon inner bias which is established before the facts of the argument are even in place. You pose an interesting question when you ask why I believe in Jesus, but the same question might be asked of you, why dont you believe?
Posted By: Scramasax
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/18/06 19:58
Survival of the fittest doesn't disclude benevolence to the social group, but in point of fact, is encouraged. Evil can be distilled as purely good for the singular entity, while good is how it effects the group as a whole. (This discludes actions of people with a brain deceases.) If one robs a bank and gets away with the money, its a real good thing for the individual, but is poor for the macro group.
The more evil something is, the less beneficial for the group. The greater the good the converse is true. This doesn't prove the breath of God, but proves survival is at the core of every living thing. The more complex the creature, the more abstract survival behaviors are.
Fish school, wolfs have packs, whales have pods, people have families, cities and countries. All are mechanisms for group prosperity.
Posted By: mpdeveloper_B
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 03/19/06 00:04
it may be "benificial" to the robber, but that doesn't make it right, or good.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 10/01/06 11:20
markup
Posted By: Alberto
Re: One vs. Two vs. Many - 10/01/06 12:32
The traditional theological argument against the existence of many Gods, assuming that one God does exsist is the following.
If God is infinite than He must be the only one otherwise it would not be infinite
Even though Fastlane69 claimed that this thread should not be a comparison science vs religion , a comparison is a must
Once again it is proved , in my opinion, that philosophy, theology and similar stuff are nothing more than common sense "wrapped" by difficult words.
The point is that common sense is often deceiving
Our intuition claims that infinite must be exclusive
but Cantor proved that various degrees of "infinite" are consistent
Obviuosly he was referring to math entities however it proves , in my opinion that the classic theological argument again the existence of many Gods is wrong
or better that only science can cast some light on the mistery of our existence