From: joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:37:32 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos

In article <1993Jan3.081022.11670@phyrql.Alt.ZA> lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA writes:
>joeb@arden.linet.org (Joe Beiter) writes:
>
>>True I have not.  Ok here goes: "Joe Beiter's limited personal definition
>>of 'God'".  God is a being that cannot be directly observed by any 
>>current technology, He alledgedly created all of the known universe, 
>>maintains an active interest on what happens on earth, even has a
>>role on the social/political activities on the earth yet still maintains
>>'invisibility' to scientifically measureable means.
>
>Let me analyse this first.  God's properties:
>

[confirmed and deleted to avoid length]
>
>You make things difficult by being vague, but let's consider matters as
>you've stated them.  Firstly, the last two points do not characterise
>God as a supernatural being; what I'm trying to say is that I believe
>such an entity _does_ exist - for example, I fit that description.  So
>I will not even remotely attempt to deny that such a being may exist,
>and I doubt that anyone else on a.a would.

But you are measurable by scientific means and you haven't claimed to
have created the universe.

>
>That leaves with two (four) points to argue.  The FAQ pays considerable
>attention to both but I guess it is not very convincing, merely because
>(a) God is beyond observation inherently places itself beyond the
>boundaries of experimental evidence (the scientific method or a research
>programme), so that no proof _can_ possibly be devised to falsify the
>statement.  The best one can do is to demand a counterexample (what
>fact or event will invalidate your belief that such a God exists) and
>attempt to provide it. (b) God is a primal cause is similarly untestable.

Yes the FAQ does seem to cover most presentable examples.  I'm just trying
to get past the generalities and see what people *really* believe.

>
>In the context of your beliefs, my atheism states that there is no reason
>to believe in a primal cause, given that any such primal cause would
>either itself have to have a cause or could be reduced to reality as
>we know it (the known universe); 

Or exist in a reality that is beyond our comprehension?  I understand your
example (and it is very good).  You'll have me chewing on that for quite
awhile.  In the mean time however, I empathize that it would be very
difficult conceiving a primal cause without a cause itself but why 
impossible?  The time/space concepts of a Black Hole are much more weird
than that but many atheists gladly grapple with it.

>Now for the unobservable deity: as I pointed out, this in itself is beyond
>the scientific method.  On the other hand, the fact that God may be
>observing Earth and in fact interacting with events on Earth changes the
>perspective a little.
>
>Note that we remain in the realm of the unfalsifiable: I cannot concoct
>an experiment that will force God to reveal itself, as this would
>contradict your premiss that God is unobservable.

I myself have always assumed this to be so to preserve 'free will'.  If
God were a scientific fact then we would have no choice but to seek his
favor by our built in nature.

>
>On the other hand, I may theorise that God _cannot_ participate in any
>event on Earth without defeating such a premiss, as its effect could be
>measured and it is accepted scientific practice to observe phenomena in
>such an indirect manner (subatomic particle collision comes to mind).
>
>It has been suggested that God would have to interact in an omnipotent
>manner (by creating the entire history of an event) to prevent itself
>from being detected, thus denying claims to free will, but this tends
>to reduce itself to the argument of primal cause, which is undecidable.
>
>On the other hand, many religions allow for miracles, which I interpret
>as direct interaction of God with events in our observable neighbourhood.
>These distinctly bring God within the measurable horizon, but your
>definition denies such.

Not the same as personal observation. *I* would not believe in God if
I had never observed his existance.  I was referring to measurable and
reproducable observation (ie: Check out this new photo of God!)

>
>My personal opinion is that an unobservable God serves no useful purpose,
>except as a silly answer to "where do we come from?" type questions.

I agree (one of those "I'm not one of them" plugs).

>An observable God has not been _reliably_ observed yet, so I discount
>such a deity as well.  On the other hand, the scientific method, and

What if his intention was to be purposely ellusive for selective population
of his "heaven"?

>especially Popper's research programme, have answered a greater number
>of pertinent questions than all the religious writings combined, with
>only a few contradictions in the process (I think quantum mechanics and
>general relativity still provide an unresolved conflict), so I'll find
>_my_ brand of God in "The Feynman Lectures" rather than in the Bible.

I respect that.  Thanks for your post.  Chock full of information and
I have much to ponder.  Hope I haven't completly turned your stomach.



>
>-- 
>Lucio de Re (lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA)
>The supernatural does not exist, but it gives me the creeps...


-- 
 -|:..Joe.Beiter@arden.linet.org          TCOC: Public Access..:|-
  -|:..........................................................:|-
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan