An attempt to prove God cannot be proved

[Faithkills]

If someone else has done this already, or better, please point me to the source.

Assumptions about the properties of God:

God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, etc. These are generally held to be what God is, and certainly if he is not these things, then he really isn't any God that it would make sense to worship or deify. He must be magic or he is no fun.

Argument:

If anything about God is knowable to us then he is circumscribed by our perception and logic and thus subordinate to our perception and logic. If we have some knowledge about God then God is powerless to choose to be anything other than what we know, and thus God is not omnipotent.

Thus God must not be knowable or else he must not be God.

So then God must not be knowable. The set of knowledge we can have about God is the null set.

If God is not knowable then we cannot ascribe any properties to him. There is nothing we may know about him including, but most especially important, the properties of existence or nonexistence. We can never perceive him at all or else he would not be omnipotent.

If God is really God then we cannot know anything whatsoever about him. Any property that is attributed to God is, perforce, merely fabrication.

Does God exist? Does he not exist? Is he good? Is he evil? Does he care about us? Does he drive a nice car? Who would he vote for American Idol? Nothing can be known about him. Or else he is not Him.

God cannot be proved to exist. God cannot be proved to not exist. God however, if he exists, exists beyond possible perception.

What sense it makes to waste lifespan worrying about him is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Anacoluthon64]

Or, more succinctly in the (approximate) words of Wittgenstein, "A nothing serves as well as a something about which nothing can be said."

'Luthon64

[Diabolos]

The book "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith goes through all these philosophical & logical arguments in a clear, succinct way.

[vexed]

Originally Posted by Faithkills

What sense it makes to waste lifespan worrying about him is left as an exercise for the reader.

Makes as much sense as trying to prove 'him', or prove that you can't prove 'him' which in crazy land proves 'him'.

[balrog666]

Didn't Douglas Adams do this already?

[gorillapaws]

Many believe that God is not omnipotent. God may have some limits on his powers--such as having to obey certain logical laws. Also couldn't someone argue against premise 1 by saying that it may be true in the universe as we know it but at any time God can choose to obliterate the rules of the universe as we know it and thus he/she/it would not be bound by our knowledge? In other words, we could come to have knowledge about God based on the current state of the universe, but that God could always radically alter the state of the universe such that it invalidates any knowledge we once had of him/her/it?

[Anacoluthon64]

Originally Posted by gorillapaws

Many believe that God is not omnipotent. God may have some limits on his powers--such as having to obey certain logical laws.

The only reason people insist on this watered-down, lukewarm, ragged shadow of "omnipotence" where god can't violate logic is so that they can pretend to talk sensibly about god. Unlike many of his predecessors and later writers, René Descartes realised the ultimate sterility and intellectual dishonesty of this suppositional subterfuge, and in his theology he insists on the absolute freedom god has to have when creating.

If we assume the more common homoeopathic version of omnipotence, we bump into all the usual well-known dificulties, such as omniscience (which seems to be subordinate to omnipotence) vs. free will, and supreme benevolence (which similarly seems to be subordinate to omnipotence) vs. persistent evil in the world.

If, on the other hand, we accept the Cartesian view, we are then barred from making any substantive statements whatsoever about god because the question of whether logic does or does not apply in any particular instance is unanswerable, and we cannot therefore meaningfully offer god as an answer to anything.

In either case, the god hypothesis is fraught with grave ontological difficulties.

Originally Posted by gorillapaws

Also couldn't someone argue against premise 1 by saying that it may be true in the universe as we know it but at any time God can choose to obliterate the rules of the universe as we know it and thus he/she/it would not be bound by our knowledge? In other words, we could come to have knowledge about God based on the current state of the universe, but that God could always radically alter the state of the universe such that it invalidates any knowledge we once had of him/her/it?

See above.

'Luthon64

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Faithkills

If someone else has done this already, or better, please point me to the source.

Assumptions about the properties of God:

God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, etc. These are generally held to be what God is, and certainly if he is not these things, then he really isn't any God that it would make sense to worship or deify. He must be magic or he is no fun.

Argument:

If anything about God is knowable to us then he is circumscribed by our perception and logic and thus subordinate to our perception and logic. If we have some knowledge about God then God is powerless to choose to be anything other than what we know, and thus God is not omnipotent.

Thus God must not be knowable or else he must not be God.

So then God must not be knowable. The set of knowledge we can have about God is the null set.

If God is not knowable then we cannot ascribe any properties to him. There is nothing we may know about him including, but most especially important, the properties of existence or nonexistence. We can never perceive him at all or else he would not be omnipotent.

If God is really God then we cannot know anything whatsoever about him. Any property that is attributed to God is, perforce, merely fabrication.

Does God exist? Does he not exist? Is he good? Is he evil? Does he care about us? Does he drive a nice car? Who would he vote for American Idol? Nothing can be known about him. Or else he is not Him.

God cannot be proved to exist. God cannot be proved to not exist. God however, if he exists, exists beyond possible perception.

What sense it makes to waste lifespan worrying about him is left as an exercise for the reader.

I like it but it is a bit tautological. It could be cleaned up a bit.

[VanillaCone]

Just to play devil's... er... God's advocate here, couldn't a believer simply argue that your argument speaks only to the limitations on our ability to understand God, and not to the actual nature of God?

For instance, when you assert:

"If we have some knowledge about God then God is powerless to choose to be anything other than what we know, and thus God is not omnipotent."

In response, a believer could say that our simplistic understanding of God is merely the product of our limited human intellect, and is in no way an indication of God's limitations. He chose to give us limited intelligence and therefore chose to be interpreted by us in a limited way. God is not powerless in this instance because He has the power to make us more intelligent, and He purposefully chose not to do so.

And then they could just swing it back around to the spiel about how proving God is unprovable doesn't prove anything, because God doesn't want us to be able to prove His existence and thus gave us limited intellectual prowess so we would have to take it on faith, blah, blah.

If you think about it, the people who invented all of this God tripe really did a pretty impressive job of closing all their logical loopholes.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by VanillaCone

If you think about it, the people who invented all of this God tripe really did a pretty impressive job of closing all their logical loopholes.

Nope, not even close.

That's why all the gods from 6, 8 and 10, 000 years ago have been thoroughly dispensed with, along with all but a couple of the others since 4000 BC as well. Early gods were downright ridiculous in today's terms - making the wind blow, the sun rise, etc. Utter tripe.

You could certainly argue that religion has done a pretty impressive job of shifting the goalposts to fit science, only occupying the tiniest gaps left to them. Even when those gaps are closed by neuroscience, quantum physics and biology, people won't stop believing in a god - everything will still be all part of the master plan of this sky-daddy who's going to kiss it all better when they die.

My suggestion regarding the OP:

there are two recent threads - one initiated by EGarrett, disproving god and another by Dustin Kesselberg proving god. Fascinating stuff if you have a few millennia to waste, but they will certainly answer all of your questions regarding proving/disproving god/s and why it's A) irrelevant and B) impossible (beyond some Utopian philosophical viewpoint either way).

I'd do you the courtesy of finding them but I'm a lazy prick. EGarrett will have the links permanently copied into his hard-on drive if he's about.

[VanillaCone]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Nope, not even close.

Well, at least this latest crop of god-worshipers doesn't seem to have any difficulty dismissing our attempts to poke holes in their logic... er, reasoning... no, uh... thinking? Umm... FEELINGS.

[Ginarley]

I've always thought the question was whether we should even bother trying to prove gods existence or not. Given no-one can tell me what god is with any coherency, I am pretty sure the answer is that we shouldn't.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by VanillaCone

Just to play devil's... er... God's advocate here

FYI, "Satan" means "The Advocate". Satan was god's advocate, holding contrary positions for the purpose of exploring philosophical and theological notions in the holy writings, e.g. Job.

[Faithkills]

Originally Posted by VanillaCone

For instance, when you assert:

"If we have some knowledge about God then God is powerless to choose to be anything other than what we know, and thus God is not omnipotent."

In response, a believer could say that our simplistic understanding of God is merely the product of our limited human intellect, and is in no way an indication of God's limitations. He chose to give us limited intelligence and therefore chose to be interpreted by us in a limited way. God is not powerless in this instance because He has the power to make us more intelligent, and He purposefully chose not to do so.

And then they could just swing it back around to the spiel about how proving God is unprovable doesn't prove anything, because God doesn't want us to be able to prove His existence and thus gave us limited intellectual prowess so we would have to take it on faith, blah, blah.

If you think about it, the people who invented all of this God tripe really did a pretty impressive job of closing all their logical loopholes.

Not really. Saying God is omnipotent but doesn't want us to know anything about him is exactly the same thing as saying that he is unkowable. So again, tautologically we can know nothing about him, and thence cannot ascribe any properties to him, including existence or nonexistence.

[Faithkills]

Originally Posted by gorillapaws

Many believe that God is not omnipotent. God may have some limits on his powers--such as having to obey certain logical laws. Also couldn't someone argue against premise 1 by saying that it may be true in the universe as we know it but at any time God can choose to obliterate the rules of the universe as we know it and thus he/she/it would not be bound by our knowledge? In other words, we could come to have knowledge about God based on the current state of the universe, but that God could always radically alter the state of the universe such that it invalidates any knowledge we once had of him/her/it?

Again, this is saying there is an omnipotent god who chooses to hide. Perhaps. Who chooses to make certain we can know nothing about him. Again if we can know nothing about him we cannot say he exists or does not exist. Thus these two possibilities are equivalent.

Either way:

If anyone tells you they know anything about god, his existence, his nonexistence, his intentions, his desires, anything at all, they must be lying or deluded.

[Jon.]

Originally Posted by Beerina

FYI, "Satan" means "The Advocate". Satan was god's advocate, holding contrary positions for the purpose of exploring philosophical and theological notions in the holy writings, e.g. Job.

No, "Satan" means "the adversary." Quite a different thing.

[tsg]

If we can't know anything about god, then why do we have a word for it?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by tsg

If we can't know anything about god, then why do we have a word for it?

I think that's an obscure agnostic position. Every theist can tell you something about the nature of the god they worship - the problem is that of the 4 billion or so theists, they will all tell you something different about his nature.

He's shiftier than Winston Peters.

[Harpoon]

Monkey intelligence can only conceptualize a money-like god, albeit a superior monkey-like being who can dole out bananas and protect us from leopards. If cetaceans have a concept of god, it's probably got flippers and sings in unimaginable beauty.

Humans still don't know everything about the universe by any means. How much of it is composed of dark matter? And what is dark matter? Is it just mass without form? Does it permeate observable matter? Is it separate from the universe we comprehend, or a part of it and us?

Even before the theory was questioned, I never found much satisfaction in the Big Bang theory. It implied, or at least my Nova-based understanding of it implied , that either the Big Bang occurred spontaneously out of nowhere, or there was an eternal cycle of banging, dispersing and reversing.

We know more about matter, space, time and energy than any time before in our history. Humans no doubt deserve an "A" in our studies at this level of our "education." But for all that remains to be learned about the nature of the universe, my guess is we're in primary school.

Until we have a deeper knowledge, I see, IMO, the proper logical response to the OP must be there is no verifiable proof of the existence of any reality (god, spirits, unseen powers or forces) other than what we can quantify or qualify with our senses or instrumention.

However, nor can we prove a negative. We can't prove there's isn't something beyond our ability to perceive it. But not proving something doesn't exist is hardly an argument that it does.

A scientist or atheist who claims there is no god, I believe is venturing into conjecture. It's not conjecture, however to deny fairy tales that violate what we know about the laws of physics.

So anyone who claims any connection with, power from, knowledge about or message from something beyond our empirical realm, really should provide some evidence, or consider the eloquence of silence.

[Faithkills]

Originally Posted by tsg

If we can't know anything about god, then why do we have a word for it?

The same reason we have a word for Thor, Cthullhu, or GodBert.

[Harpoon]

Let's invent -- only for the sake of discussion -- a way to weigh mass accurately down to the sub-atomic level. Now let's weigh a living being the instant before it dies and the instant after. Will there be a difference in weight? What's there that makes one lump of meat alive, but is missing from decomposing flesh. Is it just a pattern of electric discharges along connected synapses?

And I don't have a clue what consciousness is. I know there's research about what goes on in the brain during prayer and meditation (I don't know -- I saw it on a "20-20" segment on Faith). But is there anything empirical about consciousness?

What is it? Individuals from only three species on this planet can be aware of themselves? The dolphins, chimps and us? Could be more, cuttlefish and grey parrots are possible -- both species are highly intelligent.

So where does consciousness come from? I understand how "selection" works in evolution. But that's always left me unsatisfied, too, when it comes to self-awareness and consciousness. "Selection" explains how the original trait in an individual eventually becomes a species trait. "Selection" doesn't explain where the original trait came from. Is it accidental mutation? Bad solar flares and no sun screen?

Did our consciousness just occur through a chance mutation? Or does "selection" work toward a higher-order neurological system that can become self-aware, and have consciousness about the broader universe around it.

We are all star dust and everything about us is star dust (did Sagen say that? I hear the music). Is there something hard-wired into this star-dust matter that, when proper conditions exists, it becomes life? And does life tend to "select" toward greater complexities until an organism(s) evolves that can support consciousness? Sounds like a fun idea for a sci-fi novel, but it's well beyond our ability to prove or disprove.


Maybe someday. Whatever willing.

[Faithkills]

Originally Posted by Harpoon

Until we have a deeper knowledge, I see, IMO, the proper logical response to the OP must be there is no verifiable proof of the existence of any reality (god, spirits, unseen powers or forces) other than what we can quantify or qualify with our senses or instrumention.

I think you missed it.

The point is that, as defined, God, by Gods nature as an omnipotent being, is inherently impossible to prove or disprove, at a minimum. In fact we can't know anything at all about an omnipotent entity, else it is not omnipotent.

It's not a matter of technology advancing to the point we can learn about him. It's about if we did, or can ever learn anything about him, he's not omnipotent and he's not god.

There could be a non omnipotent creator, but if so then he is knowable and hopefully we will survive to find it. But that's not god, that's just some older/more evolved/more whatever critter. But we don't need to have a creator, and if we do what created it? You are left with infinite recursion or null cause.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Faithkills

The same reason we have a word for Thor, Cthullhu, or GodBert.

Somebody made it up?

But really. If no characteristic of god can be known, wouldn't that include the possibility of his existence? If that is the case, then all knowledge of god, including the possibility of his existence, and, in fact, the very concept of god, must come from something other than god. In which case, all knowledge about god exists without requiring a god to exist.

Which, in short, translates very simply into "god was made up."

[Faithkills]

[quote=tsg;2745302]Somebody made it up?

But really. If no characteristic of god can be known, wouldn't that include the possibility of his existence?]

Exactly.

Originally Posted by tsg

If that is the case, then all knowledge of god, including the possibility of his existence, and, in fact, the very concept of god, must come from something other than god. In which case, all knowledge about god exists without requiring a god to exist.

Which, in short, translates very simply into "god was made up."

That seems to be one consequent.

[Jon.]

Originally Posted by Harpoon

Let's invent -- only for the sake of discussion -- a way to weigh mass accurately down to the sub-atomic level. Now let's weigh a living being the instant before it dies and the instant after. Will there be a difference in weight? What's there that makes one lump of meat alive, but is missing from decomposing flesh. Is it just a pattern of electric discharges along connected synapses?

And I don't have a clue what consciousness is. I know there's research about what goes on in the brain during prayer and meditation (I don't know -- I saw it on a "20-20" segment on Faith). But is there anything empirical about consciousness?

Plenty. I'd start with Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained, if I were you. It's a bit heavy, but reasonably accessible to the layperson.

Originally Posted by Harpoon

What is it? Individuals from only three species on this planet can be aware of themselves? The dolphins, chimps and us? Could be more, cuttlefish and grey parrots are possible -- both species are highly intelligent.

You are falling into the trap of binary thinking. Consciousness is not an either/or, on/off type phenomenon, but rather a spectrum of levels of consciousness.

Originally Posted by Harpoon

So where does consciousness come from? I understand how "selection" works in evolution. But that's always left me unsatisfied, too, when it comes to self-awareness and consciousness. "Selection" explains how the original trait in an individual eventually becomes a species trait. "Selection" doesn't explain where the original trait came from. Is it accidental mutation? Bad solar flares and no sun screen?

Did our consciousness just occur through a chance mutation? Or does "selection" work toward a higher-order neurological system that can become self-aware, and have consciousness about the broader universe around it.

Again, I would refer to Dennett. Consciousness is the software, the program that the brain is running - or, more correctly, the set of programs that are running in the brain.

Originally Posted by Harpoon

We are all star dust and everything about us is star dust (did Sagen say that? I hear the music). Is there something hard-wired into this star-dust matter that, when proper conditions exists, it becomes life? And does life tend to "select" toward greater complexities until an organism(s) evolves that can support consciousness? Sounds like a fun idea for a sci-fi novel, but it's well beyond our ability to prove or disprove.


Maybe someday. Whatever willing.

If you have replicators and differential rates of survival, you will have evolution. Does evolution always end up with consciousness? Nobody really knows yet, but it seems fairly likely to me.

[Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Faithkills

I think you missed it.
The point is that, as defined, God, by Gods nature as an omnipotent being, is inherently impossible to prove or disprove, at a minimum. In fact we can't know anything at all about an omnipotent entity, else it is not omnipotent.
It's not a matter of technology advancing to the point we can learn about him. It's about if we did, or can ever learn anything about him, he's not omnipotent and he's not god.
There could be a non omnipotent creator, but if so then he is knowable and hopefully we will survive to find it. But that's not god, that's just some older/more evolved/more whatever critter. But we don't need to have a creator, and if we do what created it? You are left with infinite recursion or null cause.

I don't like the word god. It almost always has anthroporporphic undertones. And I don't believe an apex awareness, if such a thing existed, would necessarily fit into that kind of template.

Nor would it have to be omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent. Those concepts are our wishful thinking -- still the monkey looking for a super-monkey to help it get the banana and keep the leopards away.

And to keep away the nightmare of uncertainty, as well.

But you've proclaimed your definitions inviolable, so I'll cede the field... for now.

[Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Jon.

Plenty. I'd start with Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained, if I were you. It's a bit heavy, but reasonably accessible to the layperson.

Has he developed an empirical method to study consciousness? Or is the book his or compiled philosophy on the subject? I decided years ago if my head was going to be full of crap ideas without substantiation, I might as well make them my crap ideas.

I acquiesce to experts in fields of emperical study, but when it comes to conjecture... not so much.

Originally Posted by Jon.

You are falling into the trap of binary thinking. Consciousness is not an either/or, on/off type phenomenon, but rather a spectrum of levels of consciousness.

Is the same true of self-awareness? Isn't that more all or nothing?

Originally Posted by Jon.

Again, I would refer to Dennett. Consciousness is the software, the program that the brain is running - or, more correctly, the set of programs that are running in the brain.

The software seems to be instinct in most of the animal kingdom. Then we replaced Instinct 9.9 with Awareness 1.0. Still wonder how; don't need a why.

Originally Posted by Jon.

If you have replicators and differential rates of survival, you will have evolution. Does evolution always end up with consciousness? Nobody really knows yet, but it seems fairly likely to me.

Indeed.

[Faithkills]

Originally Posted by Harpoon

But you've proclaimed your definitions inviolable, so I'll cede the field... for now.

I don't want you to cede the field I want you to challenge the logic if you see a flaw.

Granted this argument is likely to have appeal in this venue, but also if it can be legitimately challenged this is also a good place to find those challenges. Many bright and trained minds here. (not all granted) I couldn't go to a believer forum and expect a logically coherent challenge.

In a line:

It is absolutely logically impossible to ever know anything about an omnipotent entity. Details in OP

To a believer it's meaningless because logic is merely another optional fantasy one can choose to believe. To a believer logic is a 'trick', like other religions are a 'trick'. That's why I asked here.

[Jon.]

Originally Posted by Harpoon

Has he developed an empirical method to study consciousness? Or is the book his or compiled philosophy on the subject? I decided years ago if my head was going to be full of crap ideas without substantiation, I might as well make them my crap ideas.

I acquiesce to experts in fields of emperical study, but when it comes to conjecture... not so much.

No, he references empirical (neurophysiological) studies fairly frequently. He is a philosopher, but it's not just an exercise in navel-gazing: he actually understands the science, and takes it into account.

Originally Posted by Harpoon

Is the same true of self-awareness? Isn't that more all or nothing?

I'm not really sure. What do you mean by "self-awareness"? A dog knows its name, a cat knows when you're talking to it, a dolphin knows its own trainer, etc. Apes seem to have some level of self-awareness and can be taught rudimentary language. I think it's pretty clear that there are gradations of both consciousness and self-awareness, and I would argue that they shade into one another at the boundary.

Originally Posted by Harpoon

The software seems to be instinct in most of the animal kingdom. Then we replaced Instinct 9.9 with Awareness 1.0. Still wonder how; don't need a why.

I'm not convinced that Awareness 1.0 isn't just Instinct 9.9.1 with a new name.

[Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Jon.

No, he references empirical (neurophysiological) studies fairly frequently. He is a philosopher, but it's not just an exercise in navel-gazing: he actually understands the science, and takes it into account.

Interesting. Too bad I've already got my birthday present.

Originally Posted by Jon.

I'm not really sure. What do you mean by "self-awareness"? A dog knows its name, a cat knows when you're talking to it, a dolphin knows its own trainer, etc. Apes seem to have some level of self-awareness and can be taught rudimentary language. I think it's pretty clear that there are gradations of both consciousness and self-awareness, and I would argue that they shade into one another at the boundary.

Humans are self-aware. Each of us is an "I." If you see your reflection, you recognize yourself. If you see a video image of yourself, you get a brief "that's me" moment. My understanding -- from ancient science classes -- is that porpoise also exhibit a concept of self if shown their reflection, as do chimps. Can't say for other cetaceans or apes.

Cats, dogs and Tweetie might interact with a mirror, but they don't seem to see the connection with themselves.

Consciousness could well be shaded, but I presume the awareness that "I am" would be a demarcation.

Originally Posted by Jon.

I'm not convinced that Awareness 1.0 isn't just Instinct 9.9.1 with a new name.

What the hay do I know? Interesting thoughts.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by gorillapaws

Many believe that God is not omnipotent. God may have some limits on his powers--such as having to obey certain logical laws. Also couldn't someone argue against premise 1 by saying that it may be true in the universe as we know it but at any time God can choose to obliterate the rules of the universe as we know it and thus he/she/it would not be bound by our knowledge? In other words, we could come to have knowledge about God based on the current state of the universe, but that God could always radically alter the state of the universe such that it invalidates any knowledge we once had of him/her/it?

Well, that pretty much equates to a "lack of knowledge about God" from a practical standpoint. If the rules can change at any time, without notice or notification, and you can never know if the rules yesterday are still the rules today, or even if what you were calling the rules yesterday were even in effect then...

... do you see what I'm getting at?

[Jon.]

Interesting. Too bad I've already got my birthday present.[/quote]

There's always next year. Or your local library...

Originally Posted by Harpoon

Humans are self-aware. Each of us is an "I." If you see your reflection, you recognize yourself. If you see a video image of yourself, you get a brief "that's me" moment. My understanding -- from ancient science classes -- is that porpoise also exhibit a concept of self if shown their reflection, as do chimps. Can't say for other cetaceans or apes.

Cats, dogs and Tweetie might interact with a mirror, but they don't seem to see the connection with themselves.

This is my understanding as well - gorillas, chimps, bonobos and dolphins certainly pass the "mirror" test. I suspect there may be other mammals, but I can't say for sure right now.

Originally Posted by Harpoon

Consciousness could well be shaded, but I presume the awareness that "I am" would be a demarcation.

Well, I would imagine you can draw a demarcation anywhere you want. Where does it get us in a discussion about god(s)?

[Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Jon.

... Well, I would imagine you can draw a demarcation anywhere you want. ...

I would think a good spot for a demarcation line would be at the moment of self perception. I don't know if the moment itself is extraordinary. But certainly afterward there should be some kind of transformation in the creature(s). Gads, I'm starting to see Clark's Black Monolith... I hate trying to craft thoughts such as these with a hangover.

Originally Posted by Jon.

Where does it get us in a discussion about god(s)?

Until we could perceive ourselves, as well as our environs, our questions would have been fundamental. Were is food? Where is shelter? Where is danger? After we evolved self-awareness we could have started in on all those "why" questions that led to superstition, religion... and later science.

The OP summed up that "God cannot be proved to exist. God cannot be proved to not exist. God however, if he exists, exists beyond possible perception."

That's quite true of our anthropormorphic, mental construct of a omni-facited god or gods. No argument there.

But we hope someday to come in contact with other sentient species, which may have some contrary views of their own on the subject (let's hope their views would be fact-based and not little green men wooishness).

I'm just not ready to say that we are so knowledgeable we can assume anything about what's knowable or unknowable until we've learned everything that is knowable about the awe-inspiring existence around us and even our own consciousness.

I'm not trying to give the woos a foothold here. Why they hold onto ancient beliefs, fables and terminology into the 21st Century, or practice ancient rites and ceremonies to appease the spirit world after we've developed so much empirical evidence about causation, and why they believe they have some franchise on eternity baffles me.

But Faithkills' OP also said, "God however, if he exists, exists beyond possible perception."

What Faithkills, the woos and many of athiests I've met conceive of when they say "god" is the problem. Maybe our eventual understanding of what the universe is, will constitute a new definition for god -- one without super primate abilities (or a need for gender).

God and man are linked through consciousness and awareness, whether god exists or not.

Here's one possibility of how an imaginary god is is linked to Man's awareness/consciousness -- Man evolves awareness randomly; Man is aware of too much around him that is incomprehensible and unanswerable; Man conjures a super-monkey god to provide explanations and security.

Here's an imaginary possibility how a non-anthropormorphic, but real god and Man could be linked through Man's awareness -- An apex consciousness exists. It wasn't created. It just is. It's not a personality; it doesn't care; it doesn't think. It's the sum of all matter, all energy. It is the entire universe. And it is aware, but it's awareness is not concentrated; it's diverse throughout the universe. Every subatomic partical, piece of dark matter, star, blade of grass has some level of awareness, hardly "aware" for the most part. But the level of awareness increases as simpler chemical combinations are transformed in more complicated combinations that become living, and then begins the long evolutionary haul.

More complicated biological systems have higher concentrations of this universal awareness. Man evolves to the point of consciousness and is able to perceive the existence of the greater, albeit dormant, non-individualistic universal awareness. Man is a primate with primate intelligence, selected by solving complicated problems, like reaching the banana and avoiding the leopard's jaws and claws. Man incorrectly presumes this other awareness (simply the well for his own consciousness) is just like him, so a foggy unrealist religion and Jerry Falwell evolve.

As Man's knowledge increases over eons through scientific advancement and intermingling with other sentients's views and knowledge, eventually the nature of the universe and consciousness/awareness are understood.

We're able to quantify levels of consciousness with technologies far advanced beyond Tweety's mirror. Once we can measure consciousness, technologies develop to allow us to detect the low background consciousness permeating everything we can perceive

We've found god and proved god through empirical measures. That the god we found wasn't lost and wasn't at all like the god we had falsely thought we had found, is just the way the facts works out sometimes.

So in this scenario, we were able to prove god. It's only the negative that remains unprovable, as it always will.

My head hurts now. I'll check for replies tomorrow.

[Jon.]

Hope your head's feeling better today.

I see what you're saying, I think - that our knowledge may someday advance to the point where we see something and say "Yeah, that's God." However, I think the opposite is actually happening. The scope for God's involvement is shrinking inexorably. As science explains more and more of what goes on in the universe (including what goes on in our brains - please read the Dennett book I recommended!), the need for God to explain anything becomes less and less.

The problem with the OP is that it proposes a definition of God that I suspect a lot of theists would disagree with. Also, I don't think it gets us very far even if the argument works. Most theists would agree that the existence of God cannot be proved beyond the experiential proof of "knowing God" or "feeling God's love". They say that you have to take everything on faith.

My frustration with debating the existence of God - and this is why I don't do it very often - is an inability on the part of the person taking the pro-God role to come up with a workable definition of God. Most of them end up with a fairly deistic god, who neither demands nor merits. I think this is what the OP was getting at, but perhaps not.

[Faithkills]

Harpoon doesn't seem to grasp is the point.

If God is omnipotent then we can't ever have knowledge of him. Science can never advance to the point of knowledge about anything about God. If we know anything about him then he is bounded, he may no longer choose to be different then what we know, and hence he is not omnipotent.

In the case of a hypothetical more advanced being, even a sentient universe while extremely unlikely, then it would of course likely be discovered eventually. But that's just a sentient universe, not an omnipotent being.

But if a God need not be omnipotent but can be merely potent then.. could you guys please start considering me to be God, kthx?

If it's omnipotent we cannot know anything about it. Think of it as a Teleological Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Like you said Jon, in fact it seems that God's possible scope is diminished continually as knowledge about the universe advances. I could see a future where the only places left for God could be in probability and turbulence. The only thing God can do is make the choices in random processes

Yet even there God is constrained that the net probability approaches unity over time.

[strathmeyer]

You're just making up a new description of a god and passing it off as a definition. You're defining a god as omnipotent, when there is no evidence that any god is omnipotent. This is just like when Pascal proved a god to exist by defining it as existing.

My scientific rebuttal to "if God is omnipotent then we can't ever have knowledge of him" is "making things up doesn't make them true".

[Jon.]

Originally Posted by strathmeyer

You're just making up a new description of a god and passing it off as a definition. You're defining a god as omnipotent, when there is no evidence that any god is omnipotent. This is just like when Pascal proved a god to exist by defining it as existing.

I think you're mixing up Pascal with St. Anselm. Pascal proved the existence of God using maxi-min gambling strategy.

Originally Posted by strathmeyer

My scientific rebuttal to "if God is omnipotent then we can't ever have knowledge of him" is "making things up doesn't make them true".

[Faithkills]

Making things up does not make them true, indeed.

But, I'm not the one who made up God. It's not my definition.

If God is not omnipotent then we reasonably should and likely will learn something about it.. but this is not the generally held definition of 'God'.

If god need not be omnipotent then we have to discuss why we would consider worshipping it, and degrees of advancement over us that would qualify something to be a 'God' from a given perspective.

If you don't require god to be omnipotent then what do you mean by god?

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Jon.

I think you're mixing up Pascal with St. Anselm. Pascal proved the existence of God using maxi-min gambling strategy.

... that fails as soon as you ask, "Okay, which god?"

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Faithkills

If you don't require god to be omnipotent then what do you mean by god?

And here beginneth the infinitely movable goalposts of god. The theological version of Whack-A-Mole.