If God died tomorrow, would we know? How would we know?

[ytrewq]

If God died tomorrow, would we know? How would we know?

Lets assume for a minute that your God exists. If it (I presume gods are sexless) died tomorrow, or moved to another universe or whatever, would we know? If so, then how would we know?

Presumably atheists would claim that nothing would change. After all, science has no need of gods, so planetary motion would continue, the sky would not fall in, the sun would rise each morning as it always did and so on. And an atheist presumably believes that our morality would not change either.

But what of those that do believe in a God. How would you know if your god died? Would you know at all? How would you know?

[historia]

As several other participants have alluded, in classical theism, God is conceived of as not just creating the universe but also sustaining the universe. That is, everything that exists depends on God continuing to actively sustain its ongoing existence.

The problem with the "classical theistic" view is that modern science has found otherwise. For example, planetary motion and the operation of stars (eg our sun) is well understood, and does not require a God.

I'm afraid this simply misunderstands the point I'm making.

Classical theism does not posit that God is needed to explain the mechanical operations of the universe -- as if God were merely a stand-in for the laws of nature -- but rather that God sustains the being of the universe.

[ytrewq]

As several other participants have alluded, in classical theism, God is conceived of as not just creating the universe but also sustaining the universe. That is, everything that exists depends on God continuing to actively sustain its ongoing existence.

The problem with the "classical theistic" view is that modern science has found otherwise. For example, planetary motion and the operation of stars (eg our sun) is well understood, and does not require a God.

I'm afraid this simply misunderstands the point I'm making.

Classical theism does not posit that God is needed to explain the mechanical operations of the universe -- as if God were merely a stand-in for the laws of nature -- but rather that God sustains the being of the universe.

Well in that case, my points become even stronger. A God is certainly not needed for something just to exist, surely? Science is exceedingly clear about that. Every single well established law and principle that science and experience has learned would be violated if that china plate on my table was to suddenly disappear, and to suggest that it would do so if not for a "sustaining God" is absurd and in violation of all scientific knowledge. So where does that leave Classic Theism?

And another point. If Classic Theism is not involved with the "mechanical operations" of the universe, then that rules out that God could perform supernatural feats such as but not limited to altering planetary motion.

Classic theism is indeed in deep, deep trouble, from which I personally doubt it will ever be able to extricate itself without a major revision that acknowledges and is consistent with modern knowledge.

[historia]

I'm afraid this simply misunderstands the point I'm making.

Classical theism does not posit that God is needed to explain the mechanical operations of the universe -- as if God were merely a stand-in for the laws of nature -- but rather that God sustains the being of the universe.

Well in that case, my points become even stronger. A God is certainly not needed for something just to exist, surely? Science is exceedingly clear about that. Every single well established law and principle that science and experience has learned would be violated if that china plate on my table was to suddenly disappear, and to suggest that it would do so if not for a "sustaining God" is absurd and in violation of all scientific knowledge.

I see several assertions here, but not much in the way of an actual argument.

It seems quite plain to me that the natural sciences simply take the existence of the natural world as a given and set out to describe it. The question of why anything exists in the first place is therefore beyond the scope of science. Why then you imagine that "all scientific knowledge" has decisively answered that question is unclear.

And another point. If Classic Theism is not involved with the "mechanical operations" of the universe, then that rules out that God could perform supernatural feats such as but not limited to altering planetary motion.

That simply does not follow. The point I made is that God is not needed to explain the mechanical operations of the universe, not that God is unable to influence them.

[ytrewq]

I'm afraid this simply misunderstands the point I'm making.

Classical theism does not posit that God is needed to explain the mechanical operations of the universe -- as if God were merely a stand-in for the laws of nature -- but rather that God sustains the being of the universe.

Well in that case, my points become even stronger. A God is certainly not needed for something just to exist, surely? Science is exceedingly clear about that. Every single well established law and principle that science and experience has learned would be violated if that china plate on my table was to suddenly disappear, and to suggest that it would do so if not for a "sustaining God" is absurd and in violation of all scientific knowledge.

I see several assertions here, but not much in the way of an actual argument.

It seems quite plain to me that the natural sciences simply take the existence of the natural world as a given and set out to describe it. The question of why anything exists in the first place is therefore beyond the scope of science. Why then you imagine that "all scientific knowledge" has decisively answered that question is unclear.

And another point. If Classic Theism is not involved with the "mechanical operations" of the universe, then that rules out that God could perform supernatural feats such as but not limited to altering planetary motion.

That simply does not follow. The point I made is that God is not needed to explain the mechanical operations of the universe, not that God is unable to influence them.

I stand by everything I wrote. Science is quite clear that a God is not required for things to exist. Science does not posit the existence of God(s) for anything. Further than that, science has provided us with an extraordinary amount of knowledge about how our universe and all within it have come into existence, certainly including but not limited to the planets and stars (suns). By comparison, religion has provided absolutely zero knowledge about such matters, absolutely, zilch, zero. I'm sorry, but that is the fact of the matter. Note that by definition, knowledge must be supported by evidence. Religion is replete with amazing claims, but is completely devoid of knowledge. Unevidenced claims are not knowledge, and have no significance whatsoever. I, too, can make unevidenced claims, and if and when I do so they are equally worthless.

That simply does not follow. The point I made is that God is not needed to explain the mechanical operations of the universe, not that God is unable to influence them.

Correct. God(s) are not required to explain the mechanical operations of the universe. And further to that, whether or not you care to admit it, there is not a single reliably recorded instance of a God "bending" or "influencing" the mechanical operations of the universe, so to claim as you apparently do that a God "could if it wanted to" has no more meaning or significance than my personally claiming that I "could if I wanted to". Actually, I claim that I can, but being a modest fellow, I just never do. Talk about a hollow, worthless claim.

I accept that you have unshakeable faith in all that you write and believe, but that does not count for anything outside of your own head. I know that sounds harsh, but that's how it is. This is not the Holy Huddle room. There is no hypocrisy here. I don't believe you or anyone else to take seriously anything that I say without supporting evidence, either.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 44 by ytrewq]

It seems quite plain to me that the natural sciences simply take the existence of the natural world as a given and set out to describe it. The question of why anything exists in the first place is therefore beyond the scope of science. Why then you imagine that "all scientific knowledge" has decisively answered that question is unclear.

This deserves a better answer than I gave previously - sorry about that.

Why does my house exist? That question is answerable, is it not, and it is not religion that will provide the answer.

Why does a gorge cut through sandstone exist? In broad terms, science answers that through an understanding of erosion by moving water over time, the amount of rainfall over time, and so on. Again, religion does not provide any answer or understanding at all, but science does.

Why do we see all of the heavier elements existing on Earth and throughout the universe, when early in the history of the universe there was only hydrogen gas. Again, science answers that question, but religion does not.

Why do stars (eg our sun) provide heat and light. Again, science tells us that, but religion (as always) has not the faintest idea, and tell us nothing. Religion is not a source of knowledge, but a source of unevidenced and thus worthless claims.

Science does not know why our universe apparently started out as a singularity and "big bang", but religion cannot answer that question either. In this case, it's all about honesty. Science is honest, and when it doesn't know something, it simply says so. In contrast, when religion does not know something, it dishonestly pretends that is does, with no evidence to back up it's imagined stories.

Hope that is clearer.

[Matthew S Islam]

Hello, pardon my absence.

What you are saying quite clearly, is that the standard religious take on science is as follows :-

Science is great and has taught us many things, but must be interpreted in the light of religious belief. Where there is a conflict between religious belief and scientific belief, it is the religious belief that is correct.

And so I remain as puzzled as ever. You are indeed saying that as far as you are concerned, modern scientific knowledge is simply wrong if it contradicts religious belief.

My religious beliefs aren't really at odds with modern scientific knowledge. So this dilemma of choosing between faith or science is not something we're dealing with outside of certain understandable scenarios.
Religious scriptures are books that address spiritual guidance and moral instruction; they're not scientific textbooks. That's not to say the scriptures are silent, but we shouldn't make the alleged problem bigger than what it is.

To answer your message: Yes of course. From the angle of a believer, it is absolutely logical to give precedence to God Word over human research.

1. Modern science is a branch of knowledge acquired through an empiricist methodology which assumes naturalism and is subject to induction.

a) Assuming naturalism makes this approach fundamentally incompatible with the Abrahamic world views. Scientific theories make conclusions based on probabilities that only take into consideration the relevant natural possibilities. This ultimately limits the options that are available, and leads to theories being formulated and well-accepted despite the insufficiency of direct evidences.

b) Induction is to make general conclusions based on a limited set of observations. This prevents science from making definitive conclusions, because there's always the possibility of new data arises that could modify or nullify previous hypotheses.

2. I recognize my scriptures to be authentic revelations from the All-Knowing God who created the world. If God conveys something, then that is the objective reality concerning the matter. God is Divine and infallible; making Him the greatest intellectual authority possible.

I think that's pretty straightforward. Assuming that God exists and my religion is correct, then surely whatever God says trumps the analysis of fallible men. However I don't think its the logic of preferring God which is puzzling you, but perhaps its belief and faith itself which troubles you. Personally, I'm pretty confident that God exists and I'm on the true religion. As such, the question I'm dealing with here ultimately comes down to: Do you actually believe your religion is true?
If yes: Religion > Science
If not: Science > Religion

It is true that science has as yet not solved the origin of the universe, though it has learned infinitely more about it than religion has ever been able to tell us, by tracing the evolution of the universe back to the Big Bang.

The expansion of the universe and the Big Bang were only discovered and formulated within the past century. Prior to this, the scientific community held that our universe was eternal. The Abrahamic faiths maintained that our universe began at some finite point in the past; and as far as the Quran is concerned, our scriptures seem to suggest similar principles with the Big Bang:

1. The smoke/gaseous condition of the initial state of the universe [41:11]
2. The universe and the Earths unified as one entity before their separation [21:30]
3. The expansion of the universe [51:47]

Again, it should be mentioned that scriptures are for our guidance, they're not scientific textbooks. A passage here and there does not equate a sophisticated scientific theory; but nevertheless, these verses do exist and the interpretations are linguistically acceptable. So actually, our knowledge of God's creation preceded 'your' scientific theories---we were correct when the scientific community was in error.

It is possible that science will never know what preceded the Big Bang, so to speak. OK. So what? There are actually many things that science does not as yet understand, but it absolutely does not follow that "therefore my God did it", which is essentially what you are saying. If you or anyone else believes that your God created the universe, then you need to define what your god is, and explain with evidence exactly how it created the universe, not to mention what created your God, and religion is unable to do that. To repeat, simply saying that "God did it" does not advance human knowledge one iota. As well could I say that my God fuzzelbus did it.

I'm of the view that science will never solve the issue concerning the origins of the cosmos. This is because science is limited to natural explanations, while the origins of the universe was a Supernatural event which falls outside the scope of science.
The reality is, the entire notion of "existence" is essentially a Supernatural phenomenon---meaning that it's impossible for anything to have ever "existed" naturally.
This is where I disagree with your objection to the Theists inserting God. It's really not a 'God of the gaps' insertion; if that's what your post was trying to dismiss. Rather, the existence of an Eternal Will (God) is necessary in order to explain why things exist at all. Every answer other than a Supernatural agent choosing to create the cosmos is irrational and impossible.

1. Everything that exists is either contingent or necessary.
2. The universes exists.
3. The universe is contingent.
4. God's existence is necessary in order to explain the universe.

The universe is a "natural" entity that is made up by a finite number of contingent parts. The universe's history is also finite which renders the universe contingent. The universe's existence isn't necessary---it could, and should have not existed. It is more sensible for nothing to have ever existed, rather than a random "natural" entity floating around this unexplainable area where "space" is possible, with its specific properties, changing and growing with no Will or explanation for its being.

Who created God?:

God's existence is necessary to rationally explain the existence of anything that falls short of His necessary qualities. God is referring to the Eternal Will (consciousness) who made the Choice of creating something other than Him.

It is not possible for him to be created because if He were created, then that's not the "entity" I'm claiming is necessary. Whoever created by contingent 'god' would be the God I'm referring to. It's impossible for their to be an infinite amount of creators due to the infinite regress. If there were an infinite amount of creators then our past would have never begun, or it would have took literally forever to have reached our current point--which is impossible.

"So why does God exist? Who gave Him those qualities? Why is there something (God) instead of nothing? Why do I have to explain the universe but you don't have to explain God?"

I understand why this question is usually posed, but it's absurd and irrelevant. I've come to conclude that God's existence is necessary based on the fact that something exists--necessitating the qualities of God to justify its existence. Had God existed without creating anything, then I wouldn't be able to determine His existence. The reality is, things do exist; therefore the Eternal Will certainly exists.
The difference between Theists and Atheists is Supernaturalism vs Naturalism. What applies to the Supernatural does not have to apply to the natural. The universe needs an explanation largely because its natural. God is a Supernatural Deity who we have "faith" in as a necessary Being. The same does not apply to the natural universe, so therefore, our incompetence in explaining the 'why's of God' doesn't result in a stalemate between the natural vs the Supernatural.

Science has never claimed to address moral issues, but frankly I have no idea what "theological issues" are. Is the science of planetary motion a theological issue? Is cosmology and the evolution of the universe a theological issue? Is biological evolution a theological issue? Well all of these are the business of science. Science has never claimed that the existence Gods is impossible, but is does claim is that on the basis of all scientific knowledge gained over hundreds of year, by millions of scientists meticulously performing experiments and making observations, that the universe runs itself just fine without intervention from or requirement of Gods. It is the business of Science to discover how the universe works, and it has done so and continues to do so with great success. Presumably your "theological issues" are some other sort of stuff, and by all means tell us about them.

If I remember correctly, what I meant when I said that was actual theological issues and disputes. Who is the true God? Allah? YHWH? Jesus or Krishna? Is Jesus pre-existent or was he initially created in this world? Was Jesus the Messiah? Are the Jews rightly guided--are they cursed? Is Hell-Fire temporal or eternal? What does science say about these theological issues? How can we use the scientific method to determine whether Jesus was a "Muslim" (Spiritually/Theologically) or whether he approves of Paul's theology and Christian orthodoxy?

Peace

[Tcg]

If God died tomorrow, would we know? How would we know?

I suppose if there were some way for churches to fly their crosses at half mast. That'd be a sign.


If that isn't possible, absolutely nothing would change.




Tcg

[ytrewq]

If God died tomorrow, would we know? How would we know?

I suppose if there were some way for churches to fly their crosses at half mast. That'd be a sign.

If that isn't possible, absolutely nothing would change.

Tcg

You are almost right, except how would the churches actually know to fly their crosses at half mast?

I like your second sentence better. Absolutely nothing would change.

BTW, is there some way you can prevent the double and triple blank lines in your postings? I find them annoying. If we all did that. we would be scrolling forever just to get from one post to the next.

[ytrewq]

Hello, pardon my absence.

What you are saying quite clearly, is that the standard religious take on science is as follows :-

Science is great and has taught us many things, but must be interpreted in the light of religious belief. Where there is a conflict between religious belief and scientific belief, it is the religious belief that is correct.

And so I remain as puzzled as ever. You are indeed saying that as far as you are concerned, modern scientific knowledge is simply wrong if it contradicts religious belief.

My religious beliefs aren't really at odds with modern scientific knowledge.

Thanks for your long response. Your religion is Islam, is that right. Anyway, I'm glad to hear that apparently Islam has fewer claims that clash with modern science compared to Christianity. But from what you are saying you do indeed agree with what I wrote in blue above.

To answer your message: Yes of course. From the angle of a believer, it is absolutely logical to give precedence to God Word over human research.

I don't agree. The religious belief that you refer to is faith based. In general, evidence is more reliable than faith, and that's a fact. If you don't believe that, then perhaps you should try investing on the stock market with a faith-based approach to choosing your stocks and buying and selling. So although some religious people do give precedence to faith-based beliefs over evidence-based beliefs, it sure as heck is not logical!

1. Modern science is a branch of knowledge acquired through an empiricist methodology which assumes naturalism and is subject to induction.

No, that's wrong. Science does not "assume" anything and is concerned only with finding truth, no more and no less. If science found that "supernatural" events were for real, then it would embrace them. Yours is a common misunderstanding. Also, if a "supernatural" phenomenon is found by science, meaning it does not fit with existing science, then if it is found to be true, theory is modified to accommodate it. Let me say it again. Science does not "assume" anything.

a) Assuming naturalism makes this approach fundamentally incompatible with the Abrahamic world views. Scientific theories make conclusions based on probabilities that only take into consideration the relevant natural possibilities. This ultimately limits the options that are available, and leads to theories being formulated and well-accepted despite the insufficiency of direct evidences.

As per what I wrote above, this is simply not correct. Science does not "limit" itself, and makes no assumptions. What science does do though is trust in evidence. If there is no evidence for a belief, then it is discarded, and that is exactly how it should be.

b) Induction is to make general conclusions based on a limited set of observations. This prevents science from making definitive conclusions, because there's always the possibility of new data arises that could modify or nullify previous hypotheses.

Correct, and that is precisely why science is "self correcting" while faith-based beliefs are not. And as a result of that, you find that the very-well-accepted and understood beliefs of science are very robust indeed, while there is still uncertainty right out at the very complex edges such as concerning black holes or dark matter. By contrast, all faith based beliefs are untrustworthy because they are not anchored to evidence.

2. I recognise my scriptures to be authentic revelations from the All-Knowing God who created the world. If God conveys something, then that is the objective reality concerning the matter. God is Divine and infallible; making Him the greatest intellectual authority possible.

Well at least you are honest! But all you are saying here is that you personally believe something to be true without evidence (I recognise ...), and therefore it is true and infallible! Nope, that is circular nonsense. You can believe anything you like, but without evidence your beliefs are worthless.

I'll break there, and address your other points in another post.