"I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science."

[°Leprechaun]

Boy, 11, graduates from college and still plans to continue education

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/23/11-year-old-graduates-college/818815002/

Impressive, but if he can use science to prove the existence of a god or goddess..
what then?

The story title may be slightly misleading. He has an associate's degree.
Still impressive however.

[°Leprechaun]

It stands to reason, at least to me, that it is logically impossible to prove God's existence or non-existence using evidence that humans could perceive, as this evidence would be, logically, created by such a hypothetical God in the first place.  Game pieces proving the existence of the board game designer and all.

Yes, but perhaps as intelligent as this boy is that piece of logic escaped him.
Perhaps he will realize this some day.

This doesn't make him arrogant in any way, as he himself said,
"Everybody has their own genius," he said. "Mine is in astrophysics, but everyone has their own genius."

[°Leprechaun]

Maillis is like a real life Sheldon Cooper who graduated college at 14.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Cooper#Early_life

The difference is that Sheldon doesn't believe in God.

[°Leprechaun]

It stands to reason, at least to me, that it is logically impossible to prove God's existence or non-existence using evidence that humans could perceive, as this evidence would be, logically, created by such a hypothetical God in the first place.  Game pieces proving the existence of the board game designer and all.

Yes, the best one can do is argue that the state of the universe (because of fine tuning, uniqueness of Earth, etc.)  is more likely under theism than under naturalism:  of course, evem ascribing probabilities is a tricky situation in this scenario and often boils down to personal intuition.  Not to say i don’t think there are food arguments for God’s existence based at least in part  on cosmology (like the Kalam argument), but it can never constitute a complete proof, in my view.

Would you agree with me that there is room for doubt on both "sides"?
The two sides of which I speak are the atheist side and the theist side, which might not be so adversarial if we were all to admit that there is the agnostic option inside each of us.
There are also the Deists of course, who seem to be somewhat in the middle.
Perhaps a lot of the problem is knowing if determinism is really true. If we are all determined by fate to be either atheists, theists, or whatever, can we really be so harsh on blaming the people on "the other side" for being what they are and thinking what they do? Perhaps we could all be more willing to "accept our fate"?

[°Leprechaun]

It stands to reason, at least to me, that it is logically impossible to prove God's existence or non-existence using evidence that humans could perceive, as this evidence would be, logically, created by such a hypothetical God in the first place.  Game pieces proving the existence of the board game designer and all.

This exactly. It would be really nice if both Bible-thumpers and euphoric atheists understood that.

The arguments pro and con, have been going on for millenia. As for euphoric atheists, I don't know whom you would include here, but most of the so called "new"* atheists would agree with that. Their argument is that since this deity refuses to show his/herself, and since their is no evidence for this deity, it is reasonable to believe that this deity does not (or perhaps may not) exist. Arguments go back at least as far as Epicurus (341–270 BC).
Although apparently the famous quote attributed to him is in question:

*https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Epicurus#Disputed

whether the term "new" is accurate is problematic because people like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett etc. aren't really that different from the "old" atheists as to their arguments.

[°Leprechaun]

The Kalam argument, popularized by William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949), begins by assuming that the universe had a beginning, but can it even be proven that the universe itself has not always existed?

[°Leprechaun]

What a nice young lad.

Yes, actually that was the point of this thread originally. It is interesting where this thread has gone, since it wasn't my original intent to start a discussion about science v. religion, but I must say that nothing much surprises me and it is a logical direction for the thread to take on this discussion.

[°Leprechaun]

The Kalam argument, popularized by William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949), begins by assuming that the universe had a beginning, but can it even be proven that the universe itself has not always existed?

I don't know, but that's the working, accepted theory of the scientific community right now.

Maybe, but it is a theory, and not necessarily a fact.

[°Leprechaun]

I will admit that the idea of "something" coming from "nothing" is a real mind stretcher, but the problem is that the concept of "nothing" is mind stretching to begin with. If the universe had a beginning what then existed before the beginning? Hence the real mind stretcher is the idea that linear time is itself an illusion etc. etc.
To say that the universe has always existed is one possible solution, although I am not sure about that and of course, I wasn't around back then so it all seems like speculation anyway.

[°Leprechaun]

Well, if you want to be "totally" open minded you could say that we can't know anything for certain.
Can that statement, logically, be challenged?
Another way to look at it is that if you are "too" open minded your brains will fall out, that if you are not willing to stand for something you will fall for anything.
Science is based on the axiom that this universe is real, but how do we know that it is not an illusion and that we are the proverbial butterfly having a dream that it is?

Religion likewise is based on the axiom that, while this universe may be real, there is another "higher" reality. Since we can only experience reality on the "lower" reality, how can we "Know" anything for certain about a higher reality? Moreover, while one can speculate that a higher reality exists, one can only conceptualize the nature of that higher reality in natural terms.

The evidence for this higher reality would be intuition, which itself is not always reliable.

[°Leprechaun]

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

That's a good point.

 I may be accused of making a strawman argument for pointing out that some Christians would argue this point with two points. 1) That God did reveal himself 2000 years ago and 2) If God were to reveal himself it would take away our free will.

Yes these two points may be oversimplifications, but I have indeed heard these two arguments.

God has never revealed himself to me. =Fact. Why should I believe in him or be attacked for not believing in him?

[°Leprechaun]

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

That's a good point.

 I may be accused of making a strawman argument for pointing out that some Christians would argue this point with two points. 1) That God did reveal himself 2000 years ago and 2) If God were to reveal himself it would take away our free will.

Yes these two points may be oversimplifications, but I have indeed heard these two arguments.

God has never revealed himself to me. =Fact. Why should I believe in him or be attacked for not believing in him?

I wasn't making any comment on whether god exists or the merits of Christianity. Just pointing out that if god wanted to be proven real he could do it on his own. And that the Christian god specifically wouldn't want that. Christianity's emphasis on apologetics in the past however many years doesn't make an awful lot of sense in the context of their religion.

The fact that the Christian god hasn't done so seems sufficient reason to question his existence.

[°Leprechaun]

Another issue is that if God is beyond human comprehension it would be impossible to prove such a Supreme Being exists, since in order to comprehend God one would have to be omniscient in the first place. If I were to be omniscient enough to comprehend God, that would make me God.

To know God is to claim omniscience, to question God's existence, therefore, would be to take the more humble path.

[°Leprechaun]

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess.  

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess.  

That's a good point.

 I may be accused of making a strawman argument for pointing out that some Christians would argue this point with two points. 1) That God did reveal himself 2000 years ago and 2) If God were to reveal himself it would take away our free will.

Yes these two points may be oversimplifications, but I have indeed heard these two arguments.

God has never revealed himself to me. =Fact. Why should I believe in him or be attacked for not believing in him?

I wasn't making any comment on whether god exists or the merits of Christianity. Just pointing out that if god wanted to be proven real he could do it on his own. And that the Christian god specifically wouldn't want that. Christianity's emphasis on apologetics in the past however many years doesn't make an awful lot of sense in the context of their religion.

The fact that the Christian god hasn't done so seems sufficient reason to question his existence.

A god that forces itself on humanity is of the kind craved by slaves. That knowing God requires sophisticated reasoning and personal maturity, proves what kind of follower He desires. You might ask yourself why you aren’t amongst that number.

That number is 144,000 out of many billions, that's why. A sophisticated and mature person doesn't need a god, right?

[°Leprechaun]

Dawkins is actually an agnostic and hasn't said, to my knowledge that he is 100% certain that there is no Supreme Being.

As for evil, if one takes the stories in the Bible too literally (as William Lane Craig for example, does) then this literal God that many (if no longer a majority) believe in, is not very nice.

Clearly, the problem of evil goes beyond natural evil and human evil, it also goes to the question of whether the creator is all loving, which according to many Christians he/she/or it is. How could an all loving god or goddess be that evil?

[°Leprechaun]

The "god" of which Spong speaks is something deep within not some sky daddy that will fix our problems for us.

The authors of the Bible, seem to see this hypothetical creator in their own fallible eyes.
If one posits that they were divinely inspired, one can also argue (as many have) that their words are to be taken 100% metaphorically, which leads to problematic confusion.

I have meditated, not to have a conscious contact with this hypothetical creator but because it is logical to do so. One can be a so called "atheist" based on science or based on philosophy and perhaps, just perhaps, or maybe not, the latter is better than the former as some have argued.
If this hypothetical creator exists she can contact my unconscious thereby giving me the will to be impeccable with my speech and right in my actions, the Buddhist atheist is an enlightened atheist.
I don't call myself a Buddhist, because according to the Tao, "Buddhist" is merely a word, and not the infallible truth. We can't, by our nature, express what is not physical using physical words.

(besides, I don't argue that Buddhism is a religion, but rather a way of life and more of a philosophy, and a good one at that, than a religion). -I intend to discuss the "free will" argument at some point in the future.

[°Leprechaun]

Er Buddhism looks rather religious once you take the white folks trying to upset their parents out the mix.

Is true Buddhism a religion? By "true" I mean that there is no evidence that the Buddha was a religious figure, at least not that I know of. Buddha's teachings were altered by religious people, but whether they are truly Buddhists is not proven.

[°Leprechaun]

Er Buddhism looks rather religious once you take the white folks trying to upset their parents out the mix.

Is true Buddhism a religion? By "true" I mean that there is no evidence that the Buddha was a religious figure, at least not that I know of. Buddha's teachings were altered by religious people, but whether they are truly Buddhists is not proven.

It's pretty hard to argue there is such a thing as "true Buddhism" given how syncretic it is in both the East and the West.  What is certain is that

As far as your remarks about the problem of evil, of course the God of the Bible isn't very "nice" as we would construe it - he demands obedience and imposes a penalty of eternal damnation (however you construe it) on those who refuse to believe & obey the gospel.  But this is a far different question than whether or not God is good or loving, so my comments regarding humans having no standing to be able to make moral judgments about an omniscient, omnipotent God due to our utterly finite nature remain.  

True Buddhism or True Christianity or True Islam could simply be defined as what Buddha, Christ and Muhammad actually said (and did?). Everything else is interpretation.
We don't have an accurate picture of Jesus from the Four Gospels. Yes, there is harmony, but if you take only the statements which are the same that leaves a lot of grey area. You can get around literalism by saying that the contradictions are based on the fact that the Bible isn't to be taken entirely literally, which is obvious ("born again" for example). That's where interpretation comes in, but since Christianity as a whole has differing interpretations (free will for example), the crucial contradictions are more in the fact that not all Christians agree on doctrine.. (Spong V. William Lane Craig for example)

[°Leprechaun]

Er Buddhism looks rather religious once you take the white folks trying to upset their parents out the mix.

Is true Buddhism a religion? By "true" I mean that there is no evidence that the Buddha was a religious figure, at least not that I know of. Buddha's teachings were altered by religious people, but whether they are truly Buddhists is not proven.

It's pretty hard to argue there is such a thing as "true Buddhism" given how syncretic it is in both the East and the West.  What is certain is that

As far as your remarks about the problem of evil, of course the God of the Bible isn't very "nice" as we would construe it - he demands obedience and imposes a penalty of eternal damnation (however you construe it) on those who refuse to believe & obey the gospel.  But this is a far different question than whether or not God is good or loving, so my comments regarding humans having no standing to be able to make moral judgments about an omniscient, omnipotent God due to our utterly finite nature remain.  

True Buddhism or True Christianity or True Islam could simply be defined as what Buddha, Christ and Muhammad actually said (and did?). Everything else is interpretation.
We don't have an accurate picture of Jesus from the Four Gospels. Yes, there is harmony, but if you take only the statements which are the same that leaves a lot of grey area. You can get around literalism by saying that the contradictions are based on the fact that the Bible isn't to be taken entirely literally, which is obvious ("born again" for example). That's where interpretation comes in, but since Christianity as a whole has differing interpretations (free will for example), the crucial contradictions are more in the fact that not all Christians agree on doctrine.. (Spong V. William Lane Craig for example)

If we use that definition, I understand your point; nonetheless, Buddhism as practiced is often very theistic in many Eastern countries.  As far as Christianity goes, most Christians (including myself) do not see only the statements of Jesus as divinely inspired; as believers in the Trinity, we would argue that the Old Testament and epistles/apocalyptic literature of the New Testament, albeit not containing statements of Jesus on Earth, are inspired by the Holy Spirit (another member of the Trinity) and thus also authoritative.  Catholics would go a step further and also give such authority to the magisterium, so to claim that "true Christianity" as only what Jesus said and did on Earth excludes basically all of Christianity as practiced.   

183. Not to commit any sin, to do good, and to purify one's mind*, that is the teaching of (all) the Awakened.

The Dhammapada
*also can mean "heart", I believe.

[°Leprechaun]

I think many people have misused the Golden Rule. Is it good to do something for/to others if they don't want it. Good intentions often have bad results. That's why saying religion is about doing good is problematic, from my pov it is not good to do to me what you would want me to do to you.
The gist of the golden rule is good, treating others with respect, but is it respectful to give me what I don't want?
This tangentially relates to this thread insofar as preaching religion on me is not what I want.
To do so is not respectful. Go knock on someone else's door.
Not that it is wrong to do it here, since it's what this place is all about, but if a Christian tries to befriend me with a hidden agenda, no thanks.

[°Leprechaun]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

[°Leprechaun]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

You birdwalked pretty hard in this post, but I will answer your first question, LOL.  The "point" of believing in a God?  The "point" is that you have reasoned such a being exists ... it's not an intentional, agenda-driven belief; it's a conclusion.

My point was that even if that what you say is true, and I don't see how it can be proven, what is the use of such a belief? Can't a person be good without such a belief? Can't a person own their own power to survive, and why outsource your power to someone else?

edit: it seems to me that it is the difference between Deism and Theism, the former believes that while such a creator exists, it doesn't really matter anyway, since this creator doesn't get involved in anyway with the universe.

[°Leprechaun]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

The consubstantial relationship between the three Divine Persons of the Trinity is not polytheism.  Each is part of one God.

Isn't everything "part of God"? Anyway the whole concept is bizarre and is only the result of an obvious over-literal view of the Bible. This "god" is always referred to in the singular and we are, if you believe the Bible, created in the image of god. If that were true.. the image of god is one person, so the whole idea of the Trinity isn't even supported by the Bible anyway which contradicts itself (at least if taken literally). Figuratively speaking I may have different parts to myself, and a person can have a multiple personality disorder, but a person is a person and not any more. So, if you take the Bible figuratively this being could have disparate personalities but not three separate bodies. The point is that there are not three literal persons. I still don't see how this wouldn't be polytheism and I am not the only one saying that.. it is an old controversy.
The trinity was invented long ago and it was political. Another problem is the idea that a finite being can conceptualize an infinite being. You can't put the infinite, by definition in a box, nor can you put the infinite in three separate boxes. In anthropomorphizing god aren't you simply creating this god in a human image? Thus human creates god and not the reverse.

[°Leprechaun]

I hope I don't sound like I am making this personal. I can respect someone without accepting their beliefs. I do know Christians whom I respect. I am just defending an unpopular belief (or complete lack thereof more precisely) that is worthy of being defended.

The question of whether a belief is useful is key. It seems possible that believing in something that isn't true can be a good thing, although such a statement seems dangerous.
I will elaborate on that later. I can certainly understand a desire to believe in an afterlife, but
with speculation that life expectancy is increasing, such a belief may become less appealing.

The questions of belief based on reason and belief based on wishful thinking are two things that need to be separated at least a little..

I know that when I was a child, when my father died, the idea that I would see him again was some comfort. (although still a painful experience) So what do you do with that?

[°Leprechaun]

If the creator is unwilling to stop evil, what is the point of believing in such a "person".
I always find it strange that theists who believe that the creator is three separate males
(and no females) refer to this creator using the singular. If this creator three, how can this
creator be one? Three does not equal one, unless truth is not truth, and I guess I must be
pretty stupid because I think that truth is truth and believing in three separate persons is
polytheism* and that's the truth.

*not that polytheism is necessarily worse than theism.

Anyway, the point is simply that religion is useless if we can do whatever we want.

The consubstantial relationship between the three Divine Persons of the Trinity is not polytheism.  Each is part of one God.

Isn't everything "part of God"? Anyway the whole concept is bizarre and is only the result of an obvious over-literal view of the Bible. This "god" is always referred to in the singular and we are, if you believe the Bible, created in the image of god. If that were true.. the image of god is one person, so the whole idea of the Trinity isn't even supported by the Bible anyway which contradicts itself (at least if taken literally). Figuratively speaking I may have different parts to myself, and a person can have a multiple personality disorder, but a person is a person and not any more. So, if you take the Bible figuratively this being could have disparate personalities but not three separate bodies. The point is that there are not three literal persons. I still don't see how this wouldn't be polytheism and I am not the only one saying that.. it is an old controversy.
The trinity was invented long ago and it was political. Another problem is the idea that a finite being can conceptualize an infinite being. You can't put the infinite, by definition in a box, nor can you put the infinite in three separate boxes. In anthropomorphizing god aren't you simply creating this god in a human image? Thus human creates god and not the reverse.

God isn't always singular; John 1:1.

That is an interesting verse to cite when discussing the oneness of God. Is the truth one?
Many people erroneously refer to the book of "Revelation" as "Revelations". Some will speak of the scripture as "the scriptures". Are these "three" persons" the same? If yes, why divide them? If no, why not? The latter would seem to create a problem, a god with a divided mind, like a multiple personality disorder.