Probability of God

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by spacemanspiff
hey i like science.
what if i think that neither God nor science will give me the ultimate truth anytime soon. am I still a slave

I do too. At least, I like real science. Real science proves its theories utilizing repeatable observations. Unfortunately, that eliminates everything before 3500 BC. This date is the earliest known written material. Since historical events can only be presented by people who witnessed the events, any other historical events are eliminated because of biases.

i don't see how we can get some probability of God.

The only way is to eliminate some of the possibilities.

if there is some sort of absolute Truth, there are a miriad of possibilities.

By exploring the empirical facts.

that's why they call if faith.

Faith includes trusting that the chair you are about to sit on will hold you up. It has in the past, but will it fail the next time you sit down? You've got to take it on faith that it will hold you up.

However, faith is not blind. The empirical evidence that the chair will hold you has been demonstrated before. But, even on new chairs, one instinctively trust them. Why?

Experience.

This is the same for the issue of Christianity. But, you can never learn to trust until you accept the possibility of it being correct. Then, you will test it.

 

[James R]

Live4Him:

I think a quick lesson in thermodynamics is in order.

An <b>open</b> system is one which can exchange both matter and energy with an external environment.
A <b>closed</b> system is one which can exhange energy but not matter with an external enviroment.
An <b>isolated</b> system exchanges neither matter nor energy with an external environment.

Here's your quote from before:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics. No process will occur spontaneously unless it is accompanied by an increase in the entropy of the universe. This applies to an isolated system, a closed system, and an open system.
-- Biological Thermodynamics, Donald T. Haynie

The universe as a whole is, of course, an isolated system, because it has no external environment by definition. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy in an isolated system must always either remain constant or increase, so the quote is correct. Take any system operating inside the universe. The entropy of the universe as a whole must either increase or stay constant due to its interaction with the system under consideration, regardless of whether that system is closed, open or isolated with respect to the rest of the universe. No argument there.

You then go on to ask:

<i>If the Laws of Thermo could only be applied in closed systems, then how could the EVER be applied, since they were developed and tested here on earth (i.e. an open system)?</i>

We can easily set up systems on Earth which are closed or isolated. A common thermos flask is a good example of a system which is very close to be closed, and which is also quite well isolated (though not perfectly, obviously). By examining such systems, we can verify the laws of thermodynamics. Moreover, the laws of thermodynamics are supported by the lack of observations of things such as perpetual motion machines.

<i>Second, the only truly closed system is the universe.</i>

In practice, some systems are so close to being closed it makes no practical difference.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Jaxom

If you put faith into something, that means you can't show proof of it, but you believe it to be true.

Not at all. When you sit down in a chair, you are trusting (i.e. having faith) that it will hold you up. You don't know if it will hold you up, until you try it.

What you say here is it CAN be confirmed, and therefore wouldn't need faith at all.

No, what I'm saying is that there is evidence that you can trust it.

However, when asked to provide proof, there's a lot of waffling

You can't prove it. That's correct. But, you CAN see evidence supporting it.

In approximately 582 BC, a man wrote that the nation of Israel would be dispersed to all the nations, and after a long period of time, God would bring these people back from the nations to found the state of Israel in the land that was promised to Abraham by God.

This was partially fulfilled in 70 AD, when Israel ceased to be a nation. Then, in 1948, it was completed when Israel became a nation again.

(Ezekiel 37)

Thus, we see empirical evidence that some being has detailed future knowledge. This lends creditability of a supernatural being.

So are we doomed then, because we question things?

Nope. This is the first step. But, unless you seek, you will never find. There is plenty of empirical evidence to support the existence of a supernatural being, AND that the identity of that supernatural being is displayed in what most people call The Bible.

Coma to my knowledge means no brain activity. So soul equals neural activity?

Nope. Here is the dictionary definition.

coma : a state of profound unconsciousness caused by disease, injury, or poison

Fair enough, since that's something intangible, like software in the computer.

You sound like you might understand computers a bit. Imagine that the human body is the hardware, the electricity is the spirit, and the software is the soul.

If you do, you will begin to understand a human being ... mind, body and soul.

 

[James R]

Live4Him:

Let's also look at your initial argument again.

<i>G) But, there is no naturalist explanation for the origins of [the big bang] singularity.

Thus, we are left with three questions that are unanswerable through science.

What are the origins of Matter, Energy and Time?

Since naturalism is unable to explain these three questions, then naturalism is not a viable option.</i>

First, there is a big difference between a question being unanswered and its being unanswerable.

Second, it does not follow that because we don't currently have an explanation for something we will never have one. Science progresses all the time. We are continually learning new things, and modifying our previous knowledge in the light of new findings. Science is malleable, and homes in on the truth.

Religion, on the other hand, claims to provide all the answers up front. How did the universe start? "God did it." Ok then - how? What are the details? "Errmm... I don't know. Doh." The "God did it" explanation is no better than a "just so" story. It might keep you happy, but it doesn't actually <b>explain</b> anything.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by James R

I think a quick lesson in thermodynamics is in order.
An <b>open</b> system is one which can exchange both matter and energy with an external environment.
A <b>closed</b> system is one which can exhange energy but not matter with an external enviroment.
An <b>isolated</b> system exchanges neither matter nor energy with an external environment.

Of course. And, if you've read my post, I acknowledged that closed systems transfer heat (i.e. energy).

We can easily set up systems on Earth which are closed or isolated.

Thank you for proving my point. While the earth is an open system, it can be treated as a closed or isolated system by proper definition.

My point was / is that the Laws of Thermo apply to Isolated, Closed, or Open Systems. One only needs to properly define the variables.

In practice, some systems are so close to being closed it makes no practical difference.

Yes, but the universe is defined as the only true isolated system.

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by Live4Him

Atheism wagers a finite cost for a finite payoff, resulting in a finite expected value. Christianity wagers a finite cost for an infinite payoff, resulting in an infinite expected value. Thus, if one wants to place the smart wager, the person would choose the Christianity option.

That was exactly what I wanted to demonstrate. I feel that demonstration is much effective when dealing with Atheists and humans in general than proofing the existance of god. They demand a manifest proof and we'll never provide them with that, because providing the manifest proof settles the matter at once and end the purpose of our life. My belief in that prohibits me from entering the discussion of proofing that god exist, in fear that I'll be playing god in the process, and I believe the matter shall not be setteled by humans but by the creator.

The only way to convince them is to scare them, and god did just that in the Torah, bible, and Koran.

You're very intelligent and I would not want to burden you, but if you have some time, let's venue on proofing the benefit cost analysis.

You seem to represent my view so far, so I'll interfere only with questions or when I feel I disagree.

Peace

 

[Jaxom]

Originally posted by Live4Him
Not at all. When you sit down in a chair, you are trusting (i.e. having faith) that it will hold you up. You don't know if it will hold you up, until you try it.

Analogies are dangerous, but if I go with this one, then I could also not have faith, but I could examine the chair for faults before I sit in it.

You can't prove it. That's correct. But, you CAN see evidence supporting it.

Agreed, you can't prove anything 100%. I misused the word proof...easy to do. Okay, evidence is a good thing.

In approximately 582 BC, a man wrote that the nation of Israel would be dispersed to all the nations, and after a long period of time, God would bring these people back from the nations to found the state of Israel in the land that was promised to Abraham by God.

This was partially fulfilled in 70 AD, when Israel ceased to be a nation. Then, in 1948, it was completed when Israel became a nation again.

This can also be taken as fulfillment of a vow. Is it not used today as validation for the founding and occupation of Israel?

But, unless you seek, you will never find.

If you look too hard, you may see what you want to see as well.

There is plenty of empirical evidence to support the existence of a supernatural being, AND that the identity of that supernatural being is displayed in what most people call The Bible.

If that is so, then why not list some. Empirical evidence is all atheists ask for, to demonstrate some supernatural existence. Look at the huge thread, "Show me the evidence". Nothing. Maybe you can help out.

Imagine that the human body is the hardware, the electricity is the spirit, and the software is the soul.

That's what current research suggests, that the body houses the brain, the neurochemistry is the mechanism, and the mind or soul is the neural network, the connections that change throughout life.

BTW, welcome to Sciforums.

 

[heflores]

Live4you said: Atheism wagers a finite cost for a finite payoff, resulting in a finite expected value. Christianity wagers a finite cost for an infinite payoff, resulting in an infinite expected value. Thus, if one wants to place the smart wager, the person would choose the Christianity option.

I found an error with your logic and time will show you that this is where you will fail. Your stamina might be long, but that will be your downfall and it's coming when the issue comes up. When you said Christianity option. you errored. You should say, believing in god "creator" option. The word christianity is made up word to describe the followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Jesus, peace be upon him said:

Mark.12
[28] And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
[30] And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

and please don't tell me that god and Jesus is one, or I'll be so disapointed and I'll cry to Allah or Eli the same way Jesus did on his ninth hour.

Matt.27
[46] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

 

[James R]

Live4Him:

<i>Thank you for proving my point. While the earth is an open system, it can be treated as a closed or isolated system by proper definition.</i>

I did not say that, and in fact it is not true. Draw an imaginary boundary around the Earth to define Earth as a system, and you have an open system. No redefinition of variables will change that.

I take it you agree with me on the other points I've made.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Earth is a close system by the perspective of some things such as life, for example. However, it is an open system for things such as gravity (although Earth has gravity of itself). So the truth is that the Earth is both a closed and open system at the same time (no different for most things).

 

[TruthSeeker]

heflores,

What is your point...? Does that really show that the logic of Live4you is wrong?

 

[Jaxom]

Earth would only be a closed system if you blocked all sunlight from reaching it. The Sun-Earth pair could come close to being closed, maybe.

 

[spacemanspiff]

Religion, on the other hand, claims to provide all the answers up front. How did the universe start? "God did it." Ok then - how? What are the details? "Errmm... I don't know. Doh." The "God did it" explanation is no better than a "just so" story. It might keep you happy, but it doesn't actually explain anything

true true. trying to prove a religion can lead to a bad case of the circular arguments.

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
heflores,

What is your point...? Does that really show that the logic of Live4you is wrong?

I believe so, but only if he repeats the mistake of indoctronitating the discussion with a set of belief over another. This discussion must remain purely Atheitic versus Theistic for it to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by Jaxom
Earth would only be a closed system if you blocked all sunlight from reaching it. The Sun-Earth pair could come close to being closed, maybe.

Don't forget rainfall, evaporation, transpiration, ect.

Earth is not closed or static either. Earth is expanding....

 

[Cris]

Live4Him,

Nope. This doesn't get you out of your dilemma. The definition of a system is not constrained by its size. It could be smaller than an atom, or larger than the known universe, or even of infinite size. You can define a system as "everything that exists". The edges themselves are at infinity.

Perhaps I should have said the 2nd law and entropy constraints are quite irrelevant within the framework of inflationary theory.

The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe that most see as essential to big bang theory has the bonus that it creates a fractal like complex of eternal pocket universes, with each following the big bang theory. As Linde points out Big Bang theory is really just a part of Inflationary Theory.

How many such fractal complexes exist, or whether there is just one and how they begin is still the subject of much debate within cosmology. It is certainly not a requirement that there be only one or a single beginning. And where our own big bang pocket universe is within this infinite series is also quite impossible to say and may quite likely never be known.

See Linde (Stanford) and Guth (MIT) for more details.

But unable to be proven, which is a contradiction of science.

And which is even more true of religion and the fantasies for gods.

So you claim. But I'm asking you to prove it.

We are talking probabilities here; these were your rules. The universe exists; at least one big bang exists. There is zero evidence for gods of any type. Unless you can prove it.

Granted, the finite universe exists. But you are stipulating that the INfinite universe exists. This is something that you must support.

The claim can be equally directed at your admission here that the universe is finite. Prove it.

All we know is that the universe exists. The question of whether it is finite or infinite can only be answered in terms of probability, speculation, and by theories from the leading minds of our scientists working in the field of cosmology, and they certainly see an infinite universe as probable and likely.

Again, even if the universe is infinitely large, that doesn't mean that the Laws of Thermo no longer apply. Science applies to the natural world through observations. Everything that has been observed about the universe show that these laws are applicable everywhere.

Yet, you are stipulating a universe that is beyond these laws. You stipulate a universe outside of our universe. And there is no empirical support of this alleged universe.

See my comments on Inflationary Theory, which answers these concerns. Note also that there is equally no empirical evidence for gods either, so that clearly cancels any objections you might have.

We know that infinity must exist

Didn't you forget to prove your premise (i.e. that there is an infinite universe)?

Thus, your conclusion cannot stand.

Sorry, I have described this a number of times in these forums.

The statement should be intuitively obvious and was not connected with an infinite universe. Unless you want to maintain that something can come from nothing, and certainly quantum events do indicate that might well be a reality. Further if we explore quantum events then we could possibly add a further naturalistic option that I have not pursued, and that also eliminates any need for a god.

However, for the moment, if we disregard quantum events as a cause for a universe then that leads us to conclude that every effect must have a cause. If there can be no effect without a cause then if there was a point in the past where nothing existed then it would be impossible for anything to have begun, i.e. there would have been nothing around to cause the first effect.

This naturally and intuitively leads us to conclude that something has always existed. This could be an infinite universe or an infinite god. Either way something with the property of infinity must exist. Therefore Infinity must exist.

We are left with an Infinite Universe being the only acceptable probable solution.

This conclusion fails the test. If the premises have been shown to be lacking substance because you haven't offered support.

Now re-read my explanations and you will see that this conclusion still remains as the only credible probability for your proposals.

 

[Cris]

truthseeker,

Earth is a close system by the perspective of some things such as life, for example.

Not true. All life on Earth is fundamentally dependent on the sun, even human life.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Live4Him
Well, lets consider the first one, the Cyclic Universe. This theory holds that the universe just cycles through an infinite series of "Big Bangs". Of course, this violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which holds that an infinite motion machine cannot exist. Thus, this explanation violates the foundation of naturalism because if contradicts known science.

No, you're not taking into account all of the laws of thermodynamics... no energy can be lost (as far as we know) from the Universe so the Universe expanding or contracting would always contain the same amount of energy. In fact, in a collapsing Universe entropy would actually reverse on a global scale. Now we might postulate that the Universe loses energy during its expansion but that is an unwarranted and unproven assumption; where is it that this energy would go? As it stands all the energy within the Universe would remain within the Universe during contraction and thus be available for the next phase.

~Raithere

(edited for spelling)

 

[Cris]

Live,

Yes, but the universe is defined as the only true isolated system.

No it isn't. There is no consensus among scientists agreeing to the whole universe being a closed system. Hawking radiation, gravity wells, etc, all indicate that some regions may well undergo a decrease in entropy.

And there is certainly no consensus regarding entropy in an infinite universe.

However, this is all irellevant within the context of an inflationary universe.

 

[Cris]

live4him,

Not at all. When you sit down in a chair, you are trusting (i.e. having faith) that it will hold you up. You don't know if it will hold you up, until you try it.

No. This is a dishonest and deliberate misuse of the term faith.

Religious faith is better known as blind faith and is quite different to the way the word faith is used in everyday life. Most dictionaries provide the different definitions.

Religious faith or blind faith is a belief based on zero evidence. It is a conviction of the truth of something without evidence or proof.

Faith used in everyday life is based on evidence, and usually inductive logic. For example I have faith in my doctor because of past experience, references, and proven qualifications. I have faith in the chair because out of all the times I have sat on a chair it has taken my weight, this is evidence by statistical probability, i.e. inductive logic, and most things we do in life use this type of thinking.