I am reading The God Delusion by physicist Richard Dawkins. I think that at one point he vaguely stated something tantamount to the position that there currently is no evidence that God exists in four dimensions, and it would, therefore, take more than the four dimensions (length, width, depth, time) with which we currently familiarly work to prove God's existence. He seems to be implying that a four-dimensional proof would not be sufficient, because it omits additional dimensions which just might yield additional excuses for one to not believe any new four-dimensional proof. I think (hope) that his reasoning is vague, sloppy, and wrong. So do you think that a never before known proof that God exists would be scientifically acceptable if presented with otherwise sufficient evidence in only the four dimensions?
*********************************************************
11-05-06, 01:34 PM
juanruiz

quote:
So do you think that a never before known proof that God exists would be scientifically acceptable if presented with otherwise sufficient evidence in only four dimensions?

Nope.

11-05-06, 01:42 PM
tsaeb
Why nope, I mean, not? Is the reason scientific and/or other? Big Grin

11-05-06, 01:42 PM
Professor
I haven't read the book, so I'll confine my remarks to pointing out that (1) Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, not a physicist; and (2) I can't imagine any philosopher claiming that the existence of God could be scientifically proven -- by any means, much less by invoking higher dimensions in the mathematical sense.

I have always respected Dawkins and his writings. Are you sure you read him right? Or is he more of a fool than I thought?

11-05-06, 01:57 PM
tsaeb
Professor: I am glad that you, who usually answer me in the science forums, appeared here. Anyway, let me first state that I am only into 1/8 of the book, which is one reason why I am inquiring before continuing.

I meant to state "scientist."

As for your questioning my understanding, Dawkins introduces a type of agnosticism with which he uses to classify his type of atheism (believe it or not), and it appears that he will eventually associate it with his showing that there is a stronger probability that God does not exist than that He exists. Anyway, of this type of agnosticism, he says: ". . . is appropriate for questions that can never be answered, no matter how much evidence we gather, because the very idea of evidence is not applicable. The question exists on a different plane, or in a different dimension, beyond the zones where evidence can reach."

It reminds me of the blind leading the blind into the ditch . . . but with a pitch for atheism, classified under agnosticism?

11-05-06, 02:02 PM
newnickname
I haven't read the book, but the review of it in Harper's Magazine criticises Dawkins for saying that God can't exist, as he'd have to be more complex than the thing he created (the universe) and, in evolutionary terms, that's the wrong way around. I'm not sure how fairly the review quotes Dawkins, "a first cause of everything... ...must have been simple".

The reviewer rightly points out that a god needn't be bound by evolution or chronological order - existing outside time.

To answer tsaeb's question, a proof that God exists would be a proof that God exists, wouldn't it, whether in one dimension or a thousand? Are you sure that you haven't got the idea backwards; in fact, if we somehow proved a negative, showing that there are no Gods in our familiar four dimensions, theists could still argue the existence fo a divinity in other, unknown, dimensions?

11-05-06, 02:12 PM
tsaeb
newnickname: I thought that we already agreed to deal only with the affirmative statement that God does exist, which is what so far Dawkins is for.

As for your order, Dawkins also stated a few pages before the quote above that "any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution." What the heck do you make of this comment, except that he is trying to sound like an evolutionary biologist? Is it God who must be said to have evolved (if He must be at all mentioned), or did religion in humans evolve, or something else?

Tonight, I think that I'll look at "Desperate Housewives" instead of this book.

11-05-06, 04:14 PM
juanruiz

quote:
Why nope,

It seems the Judeo-Christian god, who had no problem speaking to Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses, decided to shut up for millenia. This necessitated that faith become the sine qua non of religion. A library of books have been published on the theme of "proving god exists." If he was all that hot about people believing in him, he could have shown up and shown himself.

11-06-06, 12:41 PM
tsaeb
juanruiz: The scripture still states that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. What proof do you have that God is not still talking to people today: a sound mind?

11-06-06, 12:51 PM
juanruiz

quote:
What proof do you have that God is not still talking to people today:

Ah, the old prove a negative ploy. How about you prove the affirmative?

11-06-06, 02:30 PM
FredPuli

quote:
Originally posted by tsaeb:
juanruiz: The scripture still states that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. What proof do you have that God is not still talking to people today: a sound mind?

So do you know of anyone to whom God speaks ? Is there anyone famous alive to whom he speaks on occasion? How do they distinguish between thoughts from God speaking to them and their other thoughts ?

11-06-06, 02:57 PM
juanruiz

quote:
Is there anyone famous alive to whom he speaks on occasion?

Every televangelist on TBN. God is particularly good at legitimizing their call for contributions.

11-12-06, 06:58 AM
tsaeb

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
So do you know of anyone to whom God speaks ?

I wouldn't touch this one with a ten-foot pole!

Is there anyone famous alive to whom he speaks on occasion?

Famous people tend to be rich people, and usually members of the latter signified group snub me.

How do they distinguish between thoughts from God speaking to them and their other thoughts ?

Pssst! Those who hear their own thoughts excessively are for sure the dysfunctional (crazy) ones due to the rattling of their wits. In short, the answer would be, "Poorly, if at all."

11-12-06, 07:04 AM
tsaeb

quote:
Originally posted by juanruiz:

quote:
What proof do you have that God is not still talking to people today:



Ah, the old prove a negative ploy. How about you prove the affirmative?



I am working on this one. I am thinking of disproving Richard Dawkins' (The God Delusion) notion that it is highly improbable that God exists, by showing how prophecy evolves, which would be right up his, eh, alley, he so much loving evolution. In other words, some astounding, new prophecy, if shown to be the evolving and extensively intricate work of one prophetess, would splatter some rain on his parade. And who better to unravel such a thing than scientists? I guess I might then be thought of as fighting dirty but equally, as presenting a challenge. Big Grin

11-12-06, 11:20 AM
newnickname
"I'm thinking of doing something, which, if it works..."

Tsaeb, the International Union of Miserable Atheists begs you to stop! It's unfair of you to scare us so much with these terrifyingly nebulous possibilities...

11-12-06, 11:36 AM
juanruiz

quote:
the International Union of Miserable Atheists



Thanks for reminding me. I forgot to pay my dues.

11-13-06, 04:45 AM
tsaeb

quote:
Originally posted by newnickname:
"I'm thinking of doing something, which, if it works..."

Tsaeb, the International Union of Miserable Atheists begs you to stop! It's unfair of you to scare us so much with these terrifyingly nebulous possibilities...



I do not doubt that it will work. Boo!

You'll have to pay for it. Boo-boo?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,