[battlefields]

I am interested in both sides of the debate, so permit me to extend it.

Say "God" is a hypothetical higher power and can be found in matter and say "Satan" is another hypothetical deity intent on destruction, evident in anti- matter.

In the broadness of our limited understanding of the universe, it is possible that the entirety of the reactions between these two things result in the universe as we know it and very possibly as we have no idea of it. These forces are also ever present, underlying and multi dimensional of which we can only hypothesize about and of which we do and have (see string theory, among the thousands of other scientific hypotheses on the origin of the universe, continuity, etc).

Could then the unknown and unquantifiable forces at play be known as God, or the Kingdom of God, as it is truly all encompassing, satisfying the "God is omnipotent" requirement without it being a bearded man watching you take a shit? To define "God" as "matter" in the scientific sense would be confusing if one felt a kinship with "matter", a truly sterile definition. How to proceed in this confusion in a spiritual sense can lead to agnosticism.

I get the atheist argument. I was an aggressive and arrogant one myself. Don't think I am arguing a point, I am merely presenting.

Edit: This is an oversimplified version.

[Zapruder]

Originally Posted by galois

Ok, you've given a link to a page talking about a special kind of modal logic. While this is no doubt interesting and I may read it more thoroughly as modal logic is related to my field I don't see at first glance how it relates to what you are saying, except in broad terms.

What exactly do you mean by "provability is weaker than truth"? From a classical standpoint I interpret that as saying the class associated with the predicate 'true' is contained (strictly?) in the class associated with 'provable'. I'm intrigued about your alternative definition.

What's your mathematical background btw? Just curious.

I am not actually posting anything novel, I was just paraphrasing a Douglas Hofstadter quote which is, "provability is a weaker notion than truth" from the book Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

My math background is actually a logic background. What field are you in that brings you to the wonderful world of madal logic?

[Zapruder]

Originally Posted by maofas

If I'm really not getting what you're saying it's entirely your fault, because you're not actually responding directly to anyone's points and are rather just posting (horrible & hackneyed) analogies, logic equations, and one-liners instead in an attempt to avoid having to do so.

Oh how I love the Dawkinsittes...

[maofas]

You fail again. I've never read anything by him. There are way, way too many things I need to read before I can waste time reading books to convince me of something I'm already quite convinced of.

So, did they teach you in logic how to avoid logical debate or is this just a skill you've picked up via too much internet?

[Nicko1]

Originally Posted by battlefields

Say "God" is a hypothetical higher power and can be found in matter and say "Satan" is another hypothetical deity intent on destruction, evident in anti- matter.

Your hypothesis is interesting. Now comes the bit where you present evidence to support it. If there is no evidence then we should assume that the entities posited do not exist.

In the broadness of our limited understanding of the universe, it is possible that the entirety of the reactions between these two things result in the universe as we know it and very possibly as we have no idea of it. These forces are also ever present, underlying and multi dimensional of which we can only hypothesize about and of which we do and have (see string theory, among the thousands of other scientific hypotheses on the origin of the universe, continuity, etc).

And like these theories, your theory now requires evidence to move beyond the "cool idea" stage. And I'm not being sarcastic here. It is a cool idea, but just like string theory, I have no reason to think it more than that.

Could then the unknown and unquantifiable forces at play be known as God, or the Kingdom of God, as it is truly all encompassing, satisfying the "God is omnipotent" requirement without it being a bearded man watching you take a shit?

If they are unknown, then why not just say you don't know? And if they're unknown, how do you know they are unquantifiable?Describing them as entities is just not warranted.

To define "God" as "matter" in the scientific sense would be confusing if one felt a kinship with "matter", a truly sterile definition. How to proceed in this confusion in a spiritual sense can lead to agnosticism.

It can also lead to atheism (as in my case).

I get the atheist argument. I was an aggressive and arrogant one myself. Don't think I am arguing a point, I am merely presenting.

I hope that I'm not coming off as arrogant and agressive. This conception of god is actually one I used to muse about myself.

But the point where I started identifying myself as an atheist was when I admitted to myself that I would not seriously consider the existence of any other phenomenon or entity based on such a complete lack of evidence. I have no evidence that convinces me of George Dillman's "no-touch KO", and so I do not believe in it. If I see some evidence, I will reconsider. Rational people use this reasoning every time they consider a claim. Atheists simply apply this reasoning across the board, including the claims of agnosticism.

I cannot describe myself as an agnostic as I have no reason to believe that ultimate reality is unknowable. The borders of what we know are rolling back all the time, and I just think it is premature (to say the least) to define the limits of knowledge at this early stage in our species' history.

[Ian G.R.]

Your hypothesis is interesting. Now comes the bit where you present evidence to support it. If there is no evidence then we should assume that the entities posited do not exist.

No, he just wants to call matter "God" and antimatter "Satan"... Not really useful

The rest is basic "god of the gaps"-fallacy

[AlphaFoxtrot51]

Originally Posted by Ian G.R.

No, he just wants to call matter "God" and antimatter "Satan"... Not really useful

The rest is basic "god of the gaps"-fallacy

Wait...what about Higgs Boson?

[Ian G.R.]

Apparently the universe will go back in time and then prevent it from existing...

Maybe

[Nicko1]

Originally Posted by Ian G.R.

No, he just wants to call matter "God" and antimatter "Satan"... Not really useful

The rest is basic "god of the gaps"-fallacy

I know the problems with it, I still think it's interesting. It's the sort of thing I used to muse about myself. Then I mused along to the end of that chain of reasoning, and presto! Instant atheist.

[galois]

Originally Posted by Zapruder

I am not actually posting anything novel, I was just paraphrasing a Douglas Hofstadter quote which is, "provability is a weaker notion than truth" from the book Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

My math background is actually a logic background. What field are you in that brings you to the wonderful world of madal logic?

I see. I've not read that book so I can't put the quote in context. I'm curious though so I might take a look. As for myself I work in algebraic logic, although as it stands I'm more focussed on the algebraic and topological aspects.