Ignosticism

Otherwise, aren't we outside the realms of theology and philosophy, and in the domain of ordinary science? To me, that would mean that the atheists were right.

 

The atheists would be right if science could establish there's no God. I don't think there's much chance of that, but not necessarily because God is outside the constraints of space and time. The God hypothesis is not falsifiable, for the same reason ghosts are not falsifiable. It's impossible to specify the conditions in which we could show that they didn't exist, because they might simply choose to be elusive to scientists. But I don't see how that means they are outside the constraints of time and space. Ghosts supposedly live in their haunted places and may be constrained to do so. The Greek gods supposedly lived on Mount Olympus. Maybe God lives in the future, and visits us in a time machine. Who knows? I just don't think it's an essential part of the concept.

 

Working definition, god is that which we invoke. Case of tardiness solved.

 

Theoretical physicists have proposed the possibility of civilizations which may exist outside of our universe which are far more advanced than ours and could potentially include the ability to manipulate their planets fully or even solar systems. Assuming the existence of such civilizations would they be considered god(s) by that definition?

We are in the domain of ordinary science yet there is still a lot to be understood such as dark matter and dark energy, not to mention many instances of how our brains and body form various aspects of human experience.

Personally I feel there are a lot of aspects of religion that could be dropped but I don't think where science is at at the moment proves atheist right.

 

I was responding to Karen J's post that if god were in space and time, He'd be subject to science. I was arguing that even if He could be located in space and time, the idea of god is not something science could deal with because it is not falsifiable. Science is concerned with falsifiable theories and hypotheses. Atheists might be right, but they couldn't prove it without such evidence.

 

Not by her definition, since they wouldn't be outside time and space.
They'd be acting in their own time and space.

 

She said "exists out of the constraints that most of us commonly associate with space and time."

I took that to mean our understanding of space and time, basically in our universe, but that's why I asked the question for Karen_J ?

I'm not sure how we could place any constraints on beings living in a different universe, since our whole understanding of these constraints stems from our universe. I suppose with my example to be able manipulate their environment as has been suggested, they would have to interact with space to some degree but if they were of a higher dimensionality or something, I'm not sure they'd necessarily have to be tied to the same time constraints.


If that were the case that doesn't satisfy the definition of God(s) put forth by Karen_J, although I'm waiting for clarification from Karen_J, I guess God could not possibly interact with space and time otherwise it becomes constrained by it.

 

I suppose it would be obtuse to say that god as a working definition would be a verb?

 

Let's see:

I god you.

He godded the children.

After I chop you up, I will god your entrails.

I will sit in my chair and god all night.

The couple feverishly godded in their bed.

They are godding the wine deep in their inner sanctums.


...hmmmm I don't quite see it...

 

I think it was Meagain at one point suggested god doesn't work as a noun speaking of no un. Work is action. A working definition of god would be a verb, god is that which we invoke.
Let's see=I invoke cooperation
I god you=I invoke, (call upon) you.
He invoked goodness for his children.
After I chop you up, I will god your entrails.= I will, call upon intent at one time or another.
The couple feverishly invoked their lust.
They are guarding the wine deep in their inner sanctums.

 

Ahhh, I see let me try it:

I god you = I invoke the full fury of the lord on you
He godded the children = He invoked the full fury of the lord on the children
After I chop you up, I will god your entrails. = After I chop you up, I will invoke the full fury of the lord upon your entrails.
I will sit in my chair and god all night = I will sit in my chair and invoke the full fury of the lord all night.
The couple feverishly godded in their bed = The couple feverishly invoked the full fury of the lord in their bed.
They are godding their wine deep in their inner sanctums. = They are invoking the full fury of the lord with their wine in their inner sanctums.

Hmmm----that is very useful in an Old Testament sort of way... ;-)

 

While awaiting Karen J's reply, does it really matter if the integrated complexity of the universe resulted from a supernatural being or super cool aliens?

 

Your application is certainly useful in matching phenomenology with the definition I presented. Obviously those are some of the effects of god being invoked. We are justified by our words and our narrative witness of things is always god, (authority,) to us.

However there are portions of your treatment that are superfluous to the extent of distorting meaning. I will is invocation itself.

 

This is like themnax's question in another thread. What does your statement mean, 99.9999% of everything doesn't invoke anything? I replied we are not concerned about 99.9999% of everything, it means something to the 100% we are concerned about. Doesn't concern me is my answer.

 

While they might be perceived that way by primitive societies, having advanced technology doesn't make anyone a god. If these beings have incredible innate powers that don't depend on technology, that might put us into a gray area that hasn't been extensively discussed recently; more like some of the lesser gods of ancient Rome or Greece.

Not really. If you build a house, you're not trapped inside it. You can visit only rarely, and you can even tear it down.

I think the most common reasons people contemplate god is because they wonder where time and space came from, and about the origin of self-awareness. A higher power is just one possible (partial) answer to those mysteries.

I'm kind of surprised nobody has mentioned infalibility yet. A lot of people include that in their basic definition of a higher power. I don't.

 

Higher power is not physics. Physics is easy return for a job well done. OR consequences for incomplete Action. The return has contingent filling for the triple point, and that it cannot be anticipated.

 

That's right; he/she/it could be objectively studied from the viewpoint of biology, psychology, and sociology, using data that could be verified as factual.

 

Nor are limited power consistent terms.

 

The christian god is subject to space and time. The stories about their god indicate that it is subject to cause and effect: it cares about what we do, so its feelings are affected by us. It supposedly interferes with events in our universe, so it is compelled to act by events that take place outside of itself. And it gets lonely, angry, happy, and jealous. All of that is proof that is subject to cause and effect. Cause and effect are results of time and space so therefore the christian god is a slave of time and space.