Why I am not an atheist (it's not what you think ;) )

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Again you are using "authority" in an idiosyncratic way. I refer you once more to the works I cited for a clearer idea about authority in an anarchist perspective. I am perfectly free to enter a community and try to convince them to change such and such a practice. If I succeed that's fine. If I don't, I can go along with the group or I can leave. Remember that I cannot impose my view on anyone. To help you think of a typical anarchist situation: a group of friends discussing what to do that evening. Think of what goes on. Now suppose another friend joins the group. That's the situation I'm describing. Authority comes from a Pope or a King, that's certainly true. I trust you can tell the difference between that situation and one that I have described here. If you can't then maybe you need to get some friends.

What happens when someone enters the community, refuses to go along, and does not leave? 

From an evolutionary perspective, the reason we have Kings and Popes is because groups realized that they needed strong leadership to survive.  Every nation in the world has authority - it's natural.  You just can't have a large society and not have authority. Can you show me any setting outside of a few friends where leadership (authority) doesn't develop?  Some tribal leader is going to rise to the top.

[Ildiko]

What happens when someone enters the community, refuses to go along, and does not leave? 

Er - they get socially ostracised?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

What happens when someone enters the community, refuses to go along, and does not leave? 

Er - they get socially ostracised?

More likely, the group will exercise authority and "vote him off the island."

[Attila]

If I understand you personal, conscious  and intelligenct are extraneous to your definition and, for simplicity, should be eliminated. That leaves us with something responsible for the existence of the universe. This, as I suggestion before is precisely your problem area. The expression CAUSE(existence of the universe) is meaningless. But what logic do you deduce that the existence of the  universe could have a cause. I'm am taking your "responsible for" to mean "cause" for simplicity. I don't think that effect that meaningless of your phrase. Causing something to exist means that the universe must have a beginning (a state following non-existence). But this is just gibberish.

So is it gibberish for someone to say that quantum vacuum fluctuations are responsible for the universe?

Yes, when terms like "cause" (mine) or "responsible for" are used. It would help the discussion if you specified which variety of inflationary cosmology you are referring to.

 Because there are scientists who say that.  There are scientists who say that the existence of the universe can be explained in purely natural terms - which means that they are talking at some level about how the universe came into being.

There are? Then it's very strange that you don't cite them. I've seen examples (from Guth on) referring to the "early universe" but I can't find anything about "creation" or "existence". That is the bit that is gibberish.

I'm not sure why it's gibberish to say that personal intelligence is responsible for the universe, but it's not gibberish to say that quantum vacuum fluctuations are responsible.

I'm here to help.   It's gibberish in both cases. No one that I'm aware of has claimed that "vacuum fluctuations" are responsible for the existence of the universe.

Remember, I'm not trying to prove anything at this point. I'm merely trying to get a definition of God so we can have a discussion.  You are jumping ahead of yourself by objecting to a cause.  "Cause" is not my word.  I'm not confining "responsible for the existence of the universe" to any formal concept of "cause."

Then you are back to gibberish again. What does "responsible" mean in your language. If you say that the bankers' exotic bundled credit instruments are responsible for the current financial fiasco does not imply causality to you?  You say, "I'm not confining 'responsible for the existence of the universe' to any formal concept of 'cause.'" Again the descent into gibberish. You expect me to discuss things for which you provide no definition? This was our starting point. If you are not confining "responsible" to any formal concept of "cause" then you are taking your statements out of the domain of rational discussion and into an Alice in wonderland state as in "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." This of course is a definition of gibberish.

If your hypothesis is not falsifiable then no scientist will go near it. It has no empirical content and hence is not interesting.

Something is "falsifiable" if in principle it can be disproven by observation.

That is "naive falsificationism" not applicable to science. You'll need to read up a bit on the subject I'm afraid. Theories rather than statements are falsified. "observation" must be understood in a very broad sense. It is not the same as "seeing" but rather observing effects that are consistent with a theoretical model of what is under discussion. Rutherford never actually "saw" atominc nuclei but his experiments demonstrated that something along those lines existed.

So the statement that "there is a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe" is falsifiable in principle, as eventually science will be able to make observations that will prove it or disprove it.  The tools may not be available now, as in your Pluto example. But there is no reason to think they will not be available in the future.

Sorry Bruce but you have provided zero evidence for your extravagant claim. That has the same empirical status as saying "eventually science will be able to make observations that will prove or disprove the existence of the human soul". You show a touching but entirely misplaced faith in what science can and cannot do.
Your claims have absolutely nothing to do with the Pluto case. Celestial bodies are well-defined objects (stars, planets, comets, black holes, ...) with known properties. If we are looking for one (a planet-like object in the case of Pluto) then we have a good idea of what we're looking for and we will know it when we have found it. Celestial bodies are part of a more general theory which makes verifiable/falsifiable predictions with respect to their behaviour. In sharp contrast, gibberish concerning an agent "responsible for the existence of the universe" forms part of no formal theory. We can devise experiments that could spot Pluto given the means to do so long before we actually spotted it. Can you devise an experiment that would spot something responsible for the existence of the universe? I think not. Would you even claim that such an agent obeys the laws of physics?

In short, my definition of God is both coherent and falsifiable.

In shorter it is neither.

You seem to simply be raising objections to avoid the discussion. But if you find it uninteresting, that's fine.  Just say so and the conversation is over.  

Given the amount of time I've spent trying to instruct you on the fundamentals of scientific argumentation, I'd say your comment is rather unkind. I can't avoid a discussion of something that is demonstrably undiscussable. I'd hope you don't simply repeat that same unfounded claims over and over again. If you come up with something substantive, sure, let me know.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Here is an article in which the author argues that Hawking's cosmology disproves the existence of God.

http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_1_1.htm

The reason that I have posted this is that this articles shows that the concept of God is both coherent and falsifiable.  He is an atheist, and obviously does not find the concept of God to be meaningless.  He has a coherent concept of what "God" means, and proceeds to assemble arguments against the existence of such an entity.

Articles like this exhibit why you are so off base.  You won't even admit the obvious - that the concept of a creator God is a very coherent concept (as this article shows) and that it is a falsifiable concept (as this article shows).  Whether the author is right or not is another question.  But it's clear that he has no problem tackling the issue head-on, as you seem to have.  You try to define God out of existence, while this courageous author accepts the challenge, acknowledges that the term "God" has meaning, and sets about attempting to prove that he does not exist.

Now, you are not able to agree with what this author says, because for you the entire concept of God is meaningless.  If you applaud this author for his argument and his conclusion, it will demonstrate that you truly do acknowledge that the concept of God is coherent and falsifiable.   

[Attila]

Here is an article in which the author argues that Hawking's cosmology disproves the existence of God.

http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_1_1.htm

The reason that I have posted this is that this articles shows that the concept of God is both coherent and falsifiable.  He is an atheist, and obviously does not find the concept of God to be meaningless.  He has a coherent concept of what "God" means, and proceeds to assemble arguments against the existence of such an entity.

Ah Brucie. Sometimes I despair for you very survival. How can one person be so mixed up about so many different things. Let's get a couple of boring preliminaries out of the way and then get into the heavier stuff.
1. To clarify things, Quentin Smith is a philosopher and not a physicist. That's neither here nor there but it does orient his and our discussion in a particular direction.
2. You claim that his concept of a creator god is a coherent concept. Can you show me his definition of this concept in the article?
3. You claim that the proposition that god exists is falsifiable and yet neither you nor Quentin Smith offer any experimental design that could decide the issue.
4. Q.S. seems to think that his work is done. His concluding paragraph is:

The moral of this story is that quantum cosmology and classical theism cannot both be true. One has two choices: become an atheist or else argue that science, in the form of quantum cosmology, is false. However, since Copernicus and Galileo, any time that religion has opposed science, religion has lost.

5. So Brucie, since you claim to be a rationalist, I assume you have renounced god along with your job as pastor and joined the ranks of the godless. Oh and another question.
6. Does god obey the laws of physics e.g. can god travel faster than light speed (don't talk to me about hardon colliders please)
Delving into the quantum cosmology (your call not mine) I think I can illustrating quite clearly that your proffered definition is meaningless gibberish. I'll wait for your answers before proceeding to do just that.
It may be worthy of comment that AFAIK no theist has forsaken theism based on Hawking's book. So much for your rational approach. 

[Whitney]

Reminder...HAF has a civility rule; cut out the condescending tone.

[Tank]

(don't talk to me about hardon colliders please)

Possibly the best typo I've seen in a long time 

[Asmodean]

(don't talk to me about hardon colliders please)

Possibly the best typo I've seen in a long time 

..?
... ..!


A haRDon collider. Asmodean approves! 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

1. To clarify things, Quentin Smith is a philosopher and not a physicist. That's neither here nor there but it does orient his and our discussion in a particular direction.

If it's neither here nor there, why mention it, except to muddy the waters?

2. You claim that his concept of a creator god is a coherent concept. Can you show me his definition of this concept in the article?

He very clearly adopts the concept of God that is found in classical theism/Christianity. That would make it quite similar to my concept, except that I speak in terms of God being "responsible" for the universe, rather than "caused" the universe, as the latter term carries too much religious baggage. But the point is that he does not claim that "God" is an incoherent concept, but argues instead that the God of classical theism cannot exist.  

On the matter of cause, Hawking argues that the universe had no beginning, but emerged from nothing other than the laws of physics.  But the laws of physics, of mathematics, of probabilities, of logic, all describe a state of affairs from which the universe emerged. I see nothing that would prevent those laws themselves (as descriptions of reality) from emerging from a source, which, for purposes of our discussion, I refer to as "God."  The existence of those laws, all operating together to allow a universe to emerge, fits in quite nicely with my concept of God as being intelligent.  

3. You claim that the proposition that god exists is falsifiable and yet neither you nor Quentin Smith offer any experimental design that could decide the issue.

According to Smith, God is logically inconsistent with Hawking's explanation of the beginnings of the universe.  So once Hawking's hypothesis is empirically proven (assuming it is), God will automatically be disproven, or falsified. That is, according to Smith - I'm not saying I agree with Smith, but that is how I understand him to portray the concept of God as being falisifiable.

4. Q.S. seems to think that his work is done. His concluding paragraph is:

The moral of this story is that quantum cosmology and classical theism cannot both be true. One has two choices: become an atheist or else argue that science, in the form of quantum cosmology, is false. However, since Copernicus and Galileo, any time that religion has opposed science, religion has lost.

5. So Brucie, since you claim to be a rationalist, I assume you have renounced god along with your job as pastor and joined the ranks of the godless.

What I claim to be is a Christian, and I further claim that being a Christian is not necessarily irrational.  I don't think I've called myself a "rationalist," as I think that there are certain things that can be experienced which are real, but not fully explained by reason - the existence of God being one of them.

6. Does god obey the laws of physics e.g. can god travel faster than light speed (don't talk to me about hardon colliders please)

You've already suffered enough for the "hardon" reference, so I won't add anything to that. As to what God can do with respect to the laws of physics, I don't claim to know.  I don't argue that God is omnipotent, but my current belief is that God is responsible for the laws of physics.  So if he made the speed of light absolute, he may be limited by it.  On the other hand, in the inflationary period of the early universe, right after the Big Bang, the universe expanded much, much faster than the speed of light.  So maybe the whole idea of God traveling faster than the speed of light is "incoherent" and "meaningless."