Why did Allah create Tsunamis and earthquakes?

[Peikko 1,575]

Feynman was a great man, who accomplished many things in his life. A rigorous proof of the nonexistence of God is not recorded to be one of them, even by secular chroniclers who would trumpet such an achievement as one of his greatest, had it actually occurred.

The Feynman lectures are on my Amazon wish list. I deferred getting them with my Christmas money this year because I wanted Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming instead. If you could provide specific page references to any specific relevant theological or philosophical digressions he makes I should be most grateful.

Your entire argument continues to beg the question. If there is a God, the universe would still look the same, but it would have purpose. Humanity would be a small but vital part of the universe, rather than a small but insignificant part of the universe. In the absence of a technological device to detect purpose, it remains an open question.

The problem is that the points you make in your first paragraph are not supporting arguments for your thesis: the non-existence of God. Rather they are first order results from the assumption of your thesis. In order to make a credible argument you must either be reductionistic - show how your thesis derives from unambiguously true statements - or you must use argument by contradiction - assume the opposite of your thesis and show obvious, unambiguous absurdity. You have done neither.

In my former experience as an atheist, it was usually atheists who championed the use of logic and rationalism in religious debates. It feels odd that I have to explain this stuff to you.

You are not explaining anything, you are continuing to view the universe in human terms and placing humans at the center of everything. Physics does not do that, physics does not need to do that. Once again, I am not trying to suggest god does not exist because that argument is pointless and irrelevant. Explaining the universe does not require god. There is no 'before' and there is no 'creator' These are meaningless terms. You are coming from the point of view that there must be an argument as to whether or not god exists. There does not and again, I see no point in trying to prove it one way or another. The point is that the universe can and is explained WITHOUT needing god to exist. It therefore does not seem much of a stretch to me to conclude that god is an invention of the human psyche. All very interesting and the stuff of philosophy but not the stuff of physics or science.

[HeatDeath 430]

I am not arguing that god does not exist that would be pointless, I am saying that god is irrelevant in an explanation of what the universe is and how it works, that there is no necessity to think in terms of 'before' the universe (because there is no before the universe) and as such the universe was not created but rather it has and is continuously evolving. Humans are an interesting but insignificant anomoly - and that's assuming that humans are the only sentient beings in the universe which is neither proven nor disproven.

You are exhibiting a basic confusion about the nature and goal of science, and what it has accomplished so far.

The goal of science is to describe, quantitatively and predictively, the behavior of all detectable phenomena in the universe. We have made admirable progress in this goal, though obviously we still have far to go.

You are assuming that science has gone one level of abstraction farther up than it has. You assume that science also has a solid handle on metaphysics - the quantitative and predictive description of the forces and dynamics that shape the laws that quantitatively and predictively describe detectable phenomena. I assure you this is not the case.

Only the barest beginnings of quantitative metaphysics have even been proposed, and career scientists won't touch it with a 10 foot cattle prod, because virtually none of it admits to practical experimental falsification.

Atheistic metaphysics has not been proven, or even unambiguously implied by established science, and you will be hard pressed to find a philosopher of science, secular or theist, let alone a practicing scientist, who believes that it has.

You are out on a limb here, advocating a position that is far more fringey and speculative than you know.

[Peikko 1,575]

You are exhibiting a basic confusion about the nature and goal of science, and what it has accomplished so far.

The goal of science is to describe, quantitatively and predictively, the behavior of all detectable phenomena in the universe. We have made admirable progress in this goal, though obviously we still have far to go.

You are assuming that science has gone one level of abstraction farther up than it has. You assume that science also has a solid handle on metaphysics - the quantitative and predictive description of the forces and dynamics that shape the laws that quantitatively and predictively describe detectable phenomena. I assure you this is not the case.

Only the barest beginnings of quantitative metaphysics have even been proposed, and career scientists won't touch it with a 10 foot cattle prod, because virtually none of it admits to practical experimental falsification.

Atheistic metaphysics has not been proven, or even unambiguously implied by established science, and you will be hard pressed to find a philosopher of science, secular or theist, let alone a practicing scientist, who believes that it has.

You are out on a limb here, advocating a position that is far more fringey and speculative than you know.

The only part of your post I agree with is that which is in bold. As I agree with it, your first statement is untrue.

The rest of your post is irrelevant because I am not proposing or advocating a position at all, nor am I on the fringes or speculating. It is an absolute truth that our explanations and mathematical models of the universe and how it works do not include any indulgence in a requirement for god to either exist or not exist. As I said, it's a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

[HeatDeath 430]

Well of course. Any statement as to whether or not God exists is a statement about metaphysics, not physics. My initial statement - that the natural disasters we see are a designed failure mode, intended to be a significant mitigation of what could otherwise occur, akin to how a crumpled crumple zone of a car is a designed failure mode intended to be a significant mitigation of the default consequences of a car crash - that was inherently a statement about metaphysics, and not about physics. it was a statement about the dynamics and influences that shaped the laws of physics, and not about the laws of physics themselves. You responded with an argument about the physics of large waves, which seemed odd to me.

Just as no possible examination of a car could ever determine the motivations of the engineer who designed the crumple zone, or even prove unambiguously that there was an engineer, no possible examination of the laws of physics could ever determine the purpose of their Creator, or unambiguously prove that there is or was one.

Given all of this, what exactly did you disagree about in my post #39? You appear to have reversed yourself.

Edited March 30, 2011 by HeatDeath

[Dan and Judy 614]

Probe this:

Assume I faithfully believe in God and I trust He has an unconditional love for me. Say I am 19 years old. I take a bottle of water, a candle, and a holy bible into my 'prayer closet' and say I will not ever come out until God speaks to me audibly. About 3 days later I am found dead due to lack of water.

What happened to your theory? What can be concluded? Well, a couple things. Either God exists and doesn't give a sh!t about us or He doesn't exist. You can absolutely conclude that He does not have an "unconditional love for people", correct?

How about if God changes your water into wine, blows out your candle, and tells you that you are his chosen one................What can be concluded??

Either this is your lucky day or there was already a priest hiding in your closet

[The_Dude 1,142]

How about if God changes your water into wine, blows out your candle, and tells you that you are his chosen one................What can be concluded??

Either this is your lucky day or there was already a priest hiding in your closet

What then? Then you call 911 for immediate psychiatric help. If you are hearing voices in your head, you need to seek professional help.

[웃 910]

Seems a little psychotic/sadistic for God to play the silent game when the consequences for not believing is living in a lake of fire for eternity.

So is it just a mere coincidence that God spoke audibly to us a couple thousand years ago (when human intelligence was absurdly low) or does God not exist?

If all it takes is 1 appearance from God to save Billions (with a "B") and change the world for the better then why is He a MUTE p.o.s.? Every day 100s of thousands of people die and I'm sure (according to Christian theology) the majority of them are now burning every second in hell, and will continue to have the feeling of being burned alive for eternity.

WHAT A MONSTER!!!!

[Bobby+Umit 161]

He probably is testing everyones faith, ala Job, mind you, on a global scale.

You state that a Creator is not "necessary". Would you care to elaborate, perhaps even introduce some arguments for the intriguing but currently completely unsupported assertion?

Gravity, time, and everything that follows, is sufficient to create what is here and what will be...

[HeatDeath 430]

Seems a little psychotic/sadistic for God to play the silent game when the consequences for not believing is living in a lake of fire for eternity.

So is it just a mere coincidence that God spoke audibly to us a couple thousand years ago (when human intelligence was absurdly low) or does God not exist?

If all it takes is 1 appearance from God to save Billions (with a "B") and change the world for the better then why is He a MUTE p.o.s.? Every day 100s of thousands of people die and I'm sure (according to Christian theology) the majority of them are now burning every second in hell, and will continue to have the feeling of being burned alive for eternity.

WHAT A MONSTER!!!!

You're proceeding on the bizarre assumption that anybody deserves saving.

We don't

The "monsters" are us. But God loves us anyways. Only He knows why.

Gravity, time, and everything that follows, is sufficient to create what is here and what will be...

Gravity and time turns an egg into a splat.

I've yet to see a splat turn into an egg.

[웃 910]

You're proceeding on the bizarre assumption that anybody deserves saving.

We don't

You're proceeding on the bizarre assumption that we deserve to go to hell but that God gives us the free will to please Him in the short time we are here (a few decades) so that we can earn going to heaven.

We don't.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

Gravity and time turns an egg into a splat.

I've yet to see a splat turn into an egg.

Splat (egg) feeds micro organisms, which other things eat, which eventually leads to some sort of eggs being produced, because of the feeding and natural progression of things.

You may not get the same type of egg right away, but eventually, you will.

even then - it will be tiny bit different.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it can't happen.

[Ggreen 12]

Why God created Lord Infamous? think about it.

[HeatDeath 430]

You're proceeding on the bizarre assumption that we deserve to go to hell but that God gives us the free will to please Him in the short time we are here (a few decades) so that we can earn going to heaven.

We don't.

Nobody earns going to Heaven. Christians deserve it just as little, and frequently less, than any other group of people.

[mawilson 2,133]

So express it mathematically, already.

[웃 910]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gi1uch8hcM