Evidence For God Redux

Although I have lots of ideas for posts now that my commentators have thrown all sorts of spanners in my work, I thought I would have one go at summing up what I have been trying to say.

To ask for empirical proof for God is like asking what shape is yellow. It is a non-sensical question that misses the point.

Your Correspondent, Looking like a born-again, living like a heretic.

12 Responses to “Evidence For God Redux”

  1. bonzo says:

    my head hurts

  2. jimlad says:

    Yellow is shaped like a sine wave, just like red except with a shorter wavelength.

  3. jimlad says:

    Does answering that question miss the point too?

  4. zoomtard says:

    Anadin max strength. Sorts the men from the boys. Especially when crushed and snorted.

    I once heard an album by some experimental Scandinavian music gurus that was 70 minutes of a sine wave modulated by echoes in a Stockholm sewage treatment plant.

    Answering the question wrong is definitely missing the point Mr. Headoscience

  5. jimlad says:

    Ah, I see. Yes of course, it is shaped like two sine waves, one electrical, one magnetic at right angles to one another, giving us an electromagnetic signal known as yellow light. How silly of me to think within one dimension instead of two. In that case God definitely exists. I can accept that the universe may possibly have come about as a result of probability and infinite universes, but that is still just the science of it all. God obviously must have invented probability and logic in the first place in order for scientific theory to work, so science is reduced to thinking within the box God created. We need God to reveal himself directly since he exists outside that box. Do you really expect us to believe that God is not shaped like a yellow science box? “No way!” I say, “Atheism for me!”.

  6. Lucas says:

    It may not be necessary to say that logic was invented by God and its rules of validity arbitrarily set to say that there can be no scientific evidence for God’s existence. Because if you go along with a lot of traditional Christian theology, God is defined as immaterial, whereas the material world (that which is studied by science) was created by the immaterial, God.

    So if God is a being different in kind from the object of the natural sciences, the material world, it would seem to follow that God could not be squeezed into the category of material evidence, since he would be immaterial.

  7. jimlad says:

    If in the beginning, God is all that exists, then there is nothing God can create a material world out of besides himself, or at the very least some sort of transformation of himself through the void.

    If the set of rules (including science) that our universe is based on cannot all originate within our universe because of Godel’s theorum, I am assuming they come from God. This assumption is based on a characteristic of God: omniscience. He knows all things. A rule is a thing. Therefore he knows all rules.

    If the set of rules that makes up the material world is a subset of something that is a part of God, then God must be at least partly immaterial. If the material world results from both God and the void, as is laid out in Genesis, and the void is not part of God, then God must be completely immaterial, but the material is made from the immaterial.

    The void, by definition, is nothing, and therefore contains no rules. Thus the material world is created ONLY from the immaterial God.

    Lucas, your second paragraph bypasses my above argument because it uses a different characteristic of God: immateriality. My argument shows that this characteristic follows from the characteristic of omniscience, and then goes on agree with your conclusion. The last sentance in my above post was purely sarcastic, since someone discounting God on the basis of science is implicitly saying something just as stupid. Mind you I hadn’t noticed this until Zoomtard
    pointed it out.

    Zoomtard, apologies for taking up so much room on your blog.

  8. Lucas says:

    Ok, thanks for the clarification Jimlad. But even so, from the point of view of the bits of orthodox Christian theology that I know, and I’m no theologian, what you have said may be in conflict.

    As in traditional Christian theology the view about God having created the world is ‘creatio ex nihilio’, that is creation from nothing. Traditionally, Christianity has understood God to have ‘invented’ the world from nothing, and not that by some kind of ‘expansion’ of his own being, God grew the world as a kind of appendage on himself. The opposite of this view tends to be pantheism.

    Moreover there has always been emphasised an absolute distance between created and uncreated being, that created being is fundamentally different in kind from uncreated eternal being.

    So if these two things are so, then maybe the mathematical structure which would be essential to created being, would not apply to uncreated being. And that there would be no logical bridge to extend Godel to God, since the material world would not have originated in God, but would have been ‘summoned’ into existence from nothing, the void and so would never have had any ‘contact’ with Godly being. And so although it is orthodox to say that God would be omniscient, it may not be permissible to deduce this on the basis of Godel’s incompleteness theorem (of which I am hardly familiar at all, but I think its a mathematical proof disproving the possibility of deducing reality from a few axioms?)

  9. jimlad says:

    Oh, maybe that’s what Deborah meant when she said I was a liberal christian. I’d always thought of myself as someone who tried to obey God. Anyway that’s beside the point. Good point about God not neccessarily being subject to human logic. I am still hoping that it is possible to consider theology from a logical point of view though.

    The bible says the earth was formless and empty before God said, “let there be light”. In this way I think that He created the world OUT OF NOTHING, but if he CREATED the form of the earth, it’s structure, ie. rules, must originate from God. In this way the universe may also be clumsily described as an “appendage” of God. Remember also, humans are said to be made in his image, which makes that part of the universe definitely related to God. So I would fully believe the orthodox point of view. I only think that one cannot ignore the either of the phrases “God created” or, “from nothing”.

  10. Lucas says:

    I suppose you’re right, yes.

  11. zoomtard says:

    Guys, thanks for populating Zoomtard with such lovely thoughts. They tasted like milk on the verge to me. Sweet in a soon going to be poisonous way. I love that. I can’t wait until you start knife fighting.

    The theology nerd in me wants to start a digression on what we can read from Genesis 1-3. But I won’t. Instead, I’ll say Jimlad is my King. And Lucas is his Viceroy. Now fight! With knives!

  12. jimlad says:

    The Acts of the Furious Thinkers, Chapter 12, verses 23 and 24. (NIV, also LOTR)

    Immediately, because jimlad did not give praise to zoomtards true king, lucas struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

    But lucas’ wisdom continued to increase and spread, like butter over too much bread.