Personal vs. Impersonal God

[cdcdcd]

Broadly speaking, a "personal" God, for example the Christian God, is one which knows what we think and do, and is able to influence events on Earth as he chooses. By "influence" I mean to alter what happens over and above what would have happened if God did not exist, including but not limited to miracles and communicating with people. Most scientists, I contend, reject this "traditional" notion of a God because it is inconsistent with scientific knowledge. For this reason Einstein, for example, made it clear that he did not believe in a personal God.

Let me be blunt about this. If you believe that your God can temporarily suspend natural laws, and/or influence any event on Earth today, then you must reject modern science. No "iffs" or "buts" about it. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. As a scientist I have neither the credentials nor audacity to tell people what type of God they should believe in, but I am sufficiently qualified to state that a personal God that can influence events on Earth at will is inconsistent with modern science. Are there any trained scientists out there that would disagree with this?

However, does this mean that we need to reject the notion of a God altogether? Can an "impersonal" God still exist, which fits into a bigger picture. Do all of the worlds religions point to a common impersonal God of some type? Can individual religions realize that their notion of God is but one of many which, from an unbiased outsiders point of view, is no more or less credible than any other? Has our own arrogant, proud and petty preoccupation with our own "special" religion blinded us to the possibility of a broader truth?

Alternatively, should we stick with our own favorite religion, but accept the reality of science, and "move with the times" in order to survive in a robust and meaningful form? Is "moving with the times" just a continuation of the trend whereby more and more biblical teachings are interpreted as non-literal? Is there a danger here that in time, there will be nothing of significance left? Therefore is religious discipline and adherence to the religious fundamentals more important than ever?

Any comments?

[twobitsmedia]

It would be terrible for a nontheist to have to provide any of their own evidence of no God. Thats why they make such a rule and call it a victory. Laughable of course.

It's xxxx like this that makes you among the very worst apologists on this website.

If I shaped my perpectives based on your unsubstantiated opinion........I would consider this to be of importance.

You cannot prove a negative.

Of course you can't. Thats why you point of "there is no God" has no teeth. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... heory.html

http://www.bloomu.edu/departments/philo ... ative.html

http://graveyardofthegods.com/articles/ ... ative.html

http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/ ... ative.html

There's dozens more.

I cannot prove that I do not have fairies flying about my stomach, eating my dinner after I've consumed it;

Why would you want to?

I cannot prove that there is no Santa Claus.

Again, why would you want to? What does this have to do with anything?

We didn't invent this rule for our own Godless Hippie Communist purposes - it's a fundamental concept of logic.

No, it is not. But yes, it was invented for your own convenience. To me is is equal to the theist responding with "you just got to have faith." It's an escape from reason.

[Dionysus]

Well I have read both Kierkegaard and Hegel. Kierkegaard was very important to the development of 20th century thought. Not in a positive way, but he was able to impact religious thought to its own detriment.

Oh, yes. I had forgotten that he was the one who veered Christianity away from the asinine, self-defeating policy of trying to verify itself by appeal to the sciences.

Actually is is very much so.

Actually, it is very much not. For the Protestant, matters of faith are sola scriptura; only Catholicism demands that Christianity adhere to logic (or, rather, that logic adhere to Christianity).

But I'm quite glad that you're fit to tell a philosophy major who has devoted four years of schooling - and many more to extracurricular study of the subject - just how Kierkegaard erred. Feel free to enlighten me.

But you perpetuate the Kierkegaard myth amd create Christianity into something it is not. Though, I will have to admit, that many who use the word "Christian" accept the myth.

Right. Because someone who doesn't thoroughly tote the bullshit Christian line that Biblical Christianity is perfectly harmonious with the processes of logic and the empirical sciences is NO TRUE SCOTS... err, CHRISTIAN!

Christianity is supposed to embrace modernity. It is not Amish. Every man is created for his generation.

Not when modernity falsifies Christianity at every turn.

If God is, He had to have created logic. The "leap of faith" ideology has done its best to destroy that reality.

Wrong. If God 'is', He has to adhere to logic; one does not 'create' a process. Theology 101, and for precisely the same reason that Being is prior to, or more fundamental than, any extant God - existence precedes God, just as logic precedes Him. And it is for this reason that Kierkegaard is quite right in demanding that God either hold to logic or that He be absurd - he is either transcendent, or immanent, or absurd in that he is both simultaneously.

Also, Christianity has done its best to destroy reality by demanding that reality conform to its own father-figure-oriented ideology. But you don't hear me bitching about that, do you?

Yes, and it was Kierkegaard, who rather than accept the reality of the God who is/was there decided it was better to just not try and explain it at all.

Why not? It is the highest theology - such as that of the Muslims, which is of infinitely richer texture than Christianity - that the highest Being is ineffable.

Rather redefine it....take a leap, if you will.

Not at all. Kierkegaard 'defines' nothing; this is precisely the opposite of his ideology. Rather, Kierkegaard wishes to leave the 'Unknown God' as something as far beyond humanity as man is above the ants, mediated only through his Son.

By the way, what does 'dialectic' mean for Kierkegaard? You have, after all, 'read him'. But you've gotten so much of him wrong that, alas, I fear I may have misinterpreted him.

What is sad is that it is not even deep thought at all.

What is sad is that neither is the martyr-myth that Christianity stole from a thousand other cults.

[Dionysus]

Of course you can't. Thats why you point of "there is no God" has no teeth.

Wrong, dipshit.

You cannot prove a negative - the corollary to this is that the person making an assertion has to prove a positive. I do not have to disprove God, because I am making a negative claim. You, on the other hand, assign to this concept a real ontological status and must thus prove its positive.

Hence, if I claimed that Santa Claus was real, the burden of proof would not be on the individual dismissing my proclamation, but on me in asserting its facticity. Likewise on the invisible belly fairies - and likewise on you. Otherwise anyone could make a claim which could not be contested.

Prove God exists or STFU.

EDIT: Incidentally, you'll ask me to 'play nice' and tone down my wording. I refuse. You wish to consign me to Hell for all eternity? Then be prepared to play ball.

[Negachrist]

What's this? Someone else who needs to be whacked in the face with a hardback edition of "Logic 101"?

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

http://nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

[twobitsmedia]

Oh, yes. I had forgotten that he was the one who veered Christianity away from the asinine, self-defeating policy of trying to verify itself by appeal to the sciences.

Kierkegaard is given credit for putting words to the ideas. Naturally it was the way "thought" was evolving at the time. I am not aware of Christianity trying to appeal to the sciences..(outside of some of the "creationist" ilk)....so if you are randomly changing subjects...maybe its a new thread.

Actually is is very much so.

Actually, it is very much not. For the Protestant, matters of faith are sola scriptura; only Catholicism demands that Christianity adhere to logic (or, rather, that logic adhere to Christianity).

I don't have a case for Catholicism.

But I'm quite glad that you're fit to tell a philosophy major who has devoted four years of schooling - and many more to extracurricular study of the subject - just how Kierkegaard erred. Feel free to enlighten me.

I think you are the second one on this thread to announce your credentials. Is there a point to that? Is that supposed to make me sway from my belief that Kierkegaard was wrong? Is that a debate point? I am missing the logic of that point. Am I supposed to debate the fact that you went to school and say "no you didn't??" Or am I supposed to announce my schooling background?

But you perpetuate the Kierkegaard myth amd create Christianity into something it is not. Though, I will have to admit, that many who use the word "Christian" accept the myth.

Right. Because someone who doesn't thoroughly tote the bullshit Christian line that Biblical Christianity is perfectly harmonious with the processes of logic and the empirical sciences is NO TRUE SCOTS... err, CHRISTIAN!

Depends on how "logic" is defined and interpreted. Bertrand Russel wrote volumes of books and came up with these self proclaimed "rules of logic" but he could only do it based upon the most abusrd scenarios (turtles, spotted cows, etc)...and then came Flew's "No True Scotsman" created out of the most absurd scenario...

Christianity is supposed to embrace modernity. It is not Amish. Every man is created for his generation.

Not when modernity falsifies Christianity at every turn.

How has "modernity" falsified anything?

If God is, He had to have created logic. The "leap of faith" ideology has done its best to destroy that reality.

Wrong. If God 'is', He has to adhere to logic;

Only to a God created by logic.

one does not 'create' a process.

Yes, process was here and has always been here. Process is infinite. It has no boundary????

Theology 101, and for precisely the same reason that Being is prior to, or more fundamental than, any extant God - existence precedes God, just as logic precedes Him.

Well, I would think that if logic proceeded God, than they might have covered the "evidence" claim a little better in order to meet its own self established criteria. And filled in a lot of other gaps in scientific theories...

Also, Christianity has done its best to destroy reality by demanding that reality conform to its own father-figure-oriented ideology. But you don't hear me bitching about that, do you?

Bitch away.

Yes, and it was Kierkegaard, who rather than accept the reality of the God who is/was there decided it was better to just not try and explain it at all.

Why not? It is the highest theology - such as that of the Muslims, which is of infinitely richer texture than Christianity - that the highest Being is ineffable.

Of course why not? God has not met my demands of logic....he thus cannot be.

Kierkegaard 'defines' nothing; this is precisely the opposite of his ideology.

I think that was my point. He could not define anything.

By the way, what does 'dialectic' mean for Kierkegaard? You have, after all, 'read him'. But you've gotten so much of him wrong that, alas, I fear I may have misinterpreted him.

I dont think you misinterpreted him. You just agree with him. Dialectic of what part of what? theology? Existence? Imagination? He seemed to come largely from an everythingism (existential) frame of mind. Actually quite boring. There is nothing more boring than an existentialist trying to explain everything if one needs to go to sleep quickly. Nietzche, at least, cut to the chase.

[twobitsmedia]

What's this? Someone else who needs to be whacked in the face with a hardback edition of "Logic 101"?

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

http://nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

Oh, I am shocked. No beliefs.com says you cannot prove a negative. Thanks for proving my earlier stated point.

No, it is not. But yes, it was invented for your own convenience. To me is is equal to the theist responding with "you just got to have faith." It's an escape from reason.

[Dionysus]

Kierkegaard is given credit for putting words to the ideas. Naturally it was the way "thought" was evolving at the time.

Naturally it's the way that thought ought to have evolved much sooner, along with the rejection of a directly representational world.

I am not aware of Christianity trying to appeal to the sciences..(outside of some of the "creationist" ilk)....so if you are randomly changing subjects...maybe its a new thread.

Except I'm quite clearly not. The only alternative to an absurd God is one who corresponds to some reality, some logic: this God would be falsifiable.

I don't have a case for Catholicism.

You also don't have a case for the hybridization of reason with the Christian God.

I think you are the second one on this thread to announce your credentials. Is there a point to that? Is that supposed to make me sway from my belief that Kierkegaard was wrong? Is that a debate point? I am missing the logic of that point. Am I supposed to debate the fact that you went to school and say "no you didn't??" Or am I supposed to announce my schooling background?

In fact, you are. Because, honestly, I don't believe that you've read Kierkegaard (or Hegel, for that matter). I believe that you used Google-Fu and came up with a rash interpretation based on Wikipedia.

Depends on how "logic" is defined and interpreted.

Really, now? Weren't you just the one bitching about Kierkegaard 'redefining' God? And now you wish to 'redefine' logic? Seems rather contradictory to me. But what do I know?

Bertrand Russel wrote volumes of books and came up with these self proclaimed "rules of logic" but he could only do it based upon the most abusrd scenarios (turtles, spotted cows, etc)...

I don't care about Bertrand Russel. He was a quack and populist on the level of Richard Dawkins. Want real philosophy? Go read Heidegger or Husserl.

and then came Flew's "No True Scotsman" created out of the most absurd scenario...

He was not. The No True Scotsman fallacy, like the Law of Noncontradiction and the Proving a Negative fallacy and scores of other inconveniencing logical rules, are most sound.

For instance, one could easily posit that all true Scotsmen eat porridge. Yet this is empirically falsifiable; many otherwise viable Scotsmen (I am sure) detest porridge. You make the claim that all true Christians ground their faith on, or in part upon, reason. Yet this is not so; Kierkegaard (and Luther and the other Reformists) are prime examples of highly devout Christians who either relied on Scripture alone, or who rejected reason altogether and firmly in favor of religion.

How has "modernity" falsified anything?

By putting to the lie virtually every historical 'truth' contained in the Bible through accurate archaeological, philological, biological and genetic efforts?

Only to a God created by logic.

Mein 'Gott', but you are insipid.

Logic is not a 'thing', any more than Being (or existence) is a 'thing'. Two plus two equals four cannot be 'created'; it is a naturally occurring process. One cannot create this; it must have preceded God.

Yes, process was here and has always been here. Process is infinite. It has no boundary????

You babble. Meaningless, or an instance of glossolalia?

Of course why not? God has not met my demands of logic....he thus cannot be.

Precisely. Either he does not exist, or he defies logic. Kierkegaard chose the latter, and understandably so - it is the only tenable Christian position. I choose the former.

I think that was my point. He could not define anything.

He chose not to. Definition belongs to the concept of logic; God, for Kierkegaard, was, again, beyond logic.

I dont think you misinterpreted him. You just agree with him. Dialectic of what part of what? theology? Existence? Imagination? He seemed to come largely from an everythingism (existential) frame of mind. Actually quite boring. There is nothing more boring than an existentialist trying to explain everything if one needs to go to sleep quickly. Nietzche, at least, cut to the chase.

Right, thanks for answering. You haven't read him; you've simply mastered the art of Wikipedia-izing whatever confounds you. Thanks again!

Oh, I am shocked. No beliefs.com says you cannot prove a negative. Thanks for proving my earlier stated point.

HO NOEZ!!1!!!!11! TEH EVIL ATHEIST CONSPIRACY!!!!!11111!!!!

[twobitsmedia]

I am not aware of Christianity trying to appeal to the sciences..(outside of some of the "creationist" ilk)....so if you are randomly changing subjects...maybe its a new thread.

Except I'm quite clearly not. The only alternative to an absurd God is one who corresponds to some reality, some logic: this God would be falsifiable.

"This" God would. "The" God has not.

I don't have a case for Catholicism.

You also don't have a case for the hybridization of reason with the Christian God.

Another random thought...

I think you are the second one on this thread to announce your credentials. Is there a point to that? Is that supposed to make me sway from my belief that Kierkegaard was wrong? Is that a debate point? I am missing the logic of that point. Am I supposed to debate the fact that you went to school and say "no you didn't??" Or am I supposed to announce my schooling background?

In fact, you are. Because, honestly, I don't believe that you've read Kierkegaard (or Hegel, for that matter). I believe that you used Google-Fu and came up with a rash interpretation based on Wikipedia.

Oh good grief, now not only does God not exist, so does any other assertion. I am still not posting credentials, so you keep believing that.

Depends on how "logic" is defined and interpreted.

Really, now? Weren't you just the one bitching about Kierkegaard 'redefining' God?

No. I believe it had to do with his effort to create a God which fit his stanards of logic.

And now you wish to 'redefine' logic? Seems rather contradictory to me.

Logic vs rules of logic, fallacies, et al.

But what do I know?

I agree.

Bertrand Russel wrote volumes of books and came up with these self proclaimed "rules of logic" but he could only do it based upon the most abusrd scenarios (turtles, spotted cows, etc)...

Go read Heidegger or Husserl.

You can't really have one without the other.......but even the differences show the confusion about what "is." But then again, I guess that is what free thought is....no boundary.........and no end result over all.

and then came Flew's "No True Scotsman" created out of the most absurd scenario...

He was not. The No True Scotsman fallacy, like the Law of Noncontradiction and the Proving a Negative fallacy and scores of other inconveniencing logical rules, are most sound.

The law of noncontradiction has a valid base. The others...nothing but a base in strong opinion.

For instance, one could easily posit that all true Scotsmen eat porridge. Yet this is empirically falsifiable; many otherwise viable Scotsmen (I am sure) detest porridge. You make the claim that all true Christians ground their faith on, or in part upon, reason. Yet this is not so; Kierkegaard (and Luther and the other Reformists) are prime examples of highly devout Christians who either relied on Scripture alone, or who rejected reason altogether and firmly in favor of religion.

Interesting. I have never noticed that the "No Scotsmen" is a shallow argument. Rather than making an effort to see what really, they throw this blanket non-defintion over it. And I did not make this claim: You make the claim that all true Christians ground their faith on, or in part upon, reason.

How has "modernity" falsified anything?

By putting to the lie virtually every historical 'truth' contained in the Bible through accurate archaeological, philological, biological and genetic efforts?

Thats what I thought you might mean. I presume then they realized they could not do it.

Only to a God created by logic.

Mein 'Gott', but you are insipid.

Another logical insight? Don't you tire of it? I mean, I don't care, maybe by exalting yourself you "feel" it makes your argument stronger.

Logic is not a 'thing', any more than Being (or existence) is a 'thing'. Two plus two equals four cannot be 'created'; it is a naturally occurring process. One cannot create this; it must have preceded God.

No..not if God created the process. Think outside your box.

Of course why not? God has not met my demands of logic....he thus cannot be.

Precisely. Either he does not exist, or he defies logic. Kierkegaard chose the latter, and understandably so - it is the only tenable Christian position. I choose the former.

God defied Kierkegaards "logic."

I think that was my point. He could not define anything.

He chose not to. Definition belongs to the concept of logic; God, for Kierkegaard, was, again, beyond logic.

I lean toward beleiving he could not because of his passion. However, a case could be made for he chose not to. Either way, he did not.

I dont think you misinterpreted him. You just agree with him. Dialectic of what part of what? theology? Existence? Imagination? He seemed to come largely from an everythingism (existential) frame of mind. Actually quite boring. There is nothing more boring than an existentialist trying to explain everything if one needs to go to sleep quickly. Nietzche, at least, cut to the chase.

Right, thanks for answering. You haven't read him; you've simply mastered the art of Wikipedia-izing whatever confounds you. Thanks again!

I stand fully behind the answer........and questions...which you failed to respond to.

[cdcdcd]

Hello again twobitsmedia.

Progress has been slow, but the first point from my original thread appears close to resolution. To recap, my original statement, at the very start of this thread, was:

Most scientists, I contend, reject this "traditional" notion of a personal God because it is inconsistent with scientific knowledge.

At your request, I provided reputable evidence for this statement. My last statement, and your response, are printed below:

The object was to find out what proportion of scientists did not believe in a personal God, and to find that out the researchers asked a large number of scientists whether they believed in a personal God. Um, if you know of a better "methodology" to answer the question, could you kindly enlighten me?? By the way, they asked every one of the 517 scientists in the US National Academy of Sciences.

It's irrevelant to the original question which was how do you test God?

The question that I asked is not a philosophical or theological question. It is not, in principle, even a matter of opinion. The only way to answer this question is to ask a large number of scientists whether they believe in a personal God, which is exactly what this study did, and the results support my original contention. Your final exclamation of "its irrelevant ..." is effectively an acknowledgement of that fact. Thank you. I have no interest in further debate on that specific question unless you are able to present evidence, which as yet you have not done. I suggest we leave it up to others who read this thread to judge for themselves who presented the better case on the evidence that we both provided. I might be a pain-in-the-arse-arrogant-scientist in your eyes, but I am proud of my honesty, tolerance, respect, open-mindedness and willingness to admit mistake. I welcome others reading this thread to point out if and when I fail in any of these ideals, for I acknowledge that I am human and fallible.


Now, with your agreement, I suggest we move to debating the next statement from my original posting. The wheels of debate turn slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. For your reference, my next statement was :

Let me be blunt about this. If you believe that your God can temporarily suspend natural laws, and/or influence any event on Earth today, then you must reject modern science. No "iffs" or "buts" about it. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. As a scientist I have neither the credentials nor audacity to tell people what type of God they should believe in, but I am sufficiently qualified to state that a personal God that can influence events on Earth at will is inconsistent with modern science. Are there any trained scientists out there that would disagree with this?

I also welcome comments/discussion from other members of the list.