Proof there is a God

[DaveC426913]

Saying it has been refuted does not make it so.

Which is why I re-iterated it here. The conclusion is not supported by the premise.

Or would you argue that I need to know the colour of Russell's Teapot before I can satisfactorily conclude it's not there?

From my perspective there hasn't even been decent discussion about what God is

Agreed. Because, as I have demonstrated, it is not relevant to the discussion of its existence, any more than a discussion of the clay-firing techniques of Russell's Teapot is required to dismiss it.

If you have an assertion then state it, and I will respond.

I am not asserting. I am simply dismantling your assertion. To wit: "What is God, in your opinion? You need to answer this to make sense of what you said."

Firstly we aren't discussing crockery, we are discussing God.

You have put forth an assertion that one must understand something to a certain level of detail to make a judgement about whether it exists.
I am showing that that is demonstrably not so, by way of something that we know agree probably doesn't exist, namely a teapot orbiting out near Mars.

Secondly if you claim that God is fictional, then why He is fictional.

A separate discussion.

Then what is your purpose here?

What is anyone's purpose here? I like to discuss stuff. This thread is not simply a one-sided soap-boxing opportunity; it is a dialogue.

Show me where I have claimed that God exists, and

Do you mean where you have claimed God exists objectively, or do you mean you have stated you believe he exists (i.e. subjectively)?

I'm pretty sure I could drum up some examples of the latter, if you are claiming you have not, here on SciFo, claimed you do believe in God's existence.

I'lls how you where you, or others have claimed God doesn't exist.

If they (or I) said that, they (or I) would be wrong. No one can claim God does not exist**. You know this. I know this.

**At least, they can't claim objectively that it does not exist. That does not exclude them from being subjectively sure he does not exist.

Do you still regard the onus is on the one who makes claim?

Of course.

 

[DaveC426913]

All that being said,

Sure, if we agree that God is that which gives us our conscience then, since we have conscience, God must exist.

This has given me pause for thought.

It is conceivable that Jan has a definition for God that is unique. If so, then I grant that - without knowing just how unique - I am hasty in concluding that it can be satisfactorily dismissed based on only a single criteria. (I would, however, argue that is disingenuous, since it essentially is a single-personal definition for a known word - a misrepresentation.)

For example, Jan may define God as, say ... conscience - an internal moral compass, or some sort of collective consciousness, maybe simply the first cause that precipitated the Big Bang. (I'm not presupposing this is your belief Jan, it's just for argument's sake).

That being said though, it behooves me to state the single criterion by which I (and likely most other atheists) do dismiss God's existence.

To my mind, any meaningful definition of God assumes a supernatural or paranormal element that operates beyond the known laws of demonstrable physics.

If Jan, your - or anyone's - definition of God includes the assumption that it is supernatural or paranormal (and, for me, that includes collective consciousness, et al), then I don't need to know what particular flavour of God you uphold to be satisfied that our world operates just fine without it.

 

[exchemist]

. I hope I did not give the wrong impression that mathematics is a physical thing. IMO it is a metaphysical structural imperative of our spacetime. IOW, the relationships etween things is mathematical in essence. Some interactions are mathematically allowed, other interactions are not mathematically allowed. But IMO, mathematics is an abstract *logical system*, which are able to represent symbolically with numbers and equations.

The Hazen example clearly shows the mathematical preferences of left and right handed molecules. And so it is with inherent potentials of particles.

If we try to connect two positively charged particles, they will repel each other, OTOH connecting two oppositely charged particles will result in a bonding. Perhaps this may be a *stretch*, but I see that as a fundamental mathematical function, resulting in a specific action.
I agree.

And I totally disagree with the expression of "God works in mysterious ways". Some universal functions may be mysterious to us, but I am wiling to bet on the chance that those mysterious ways are mathematical in essence.

As Eistein said, "God does not play dice", implying there is an underlying mathematical function, even if we do not (yet) understand that function.

Well let's not go again into your - to my mind odd- ideas of what a mathematical function is. We've done that already elsewhere.

But on your last point, most people (apart from Hidden Variable theorists, who are in a small minority nowadays) think Einstein was wrong about that. Physics strongly suggests that God, if He is there, does play dice.

 

[Write4U]

Jan, your - or anyone's - definition of God includes the assumption that it is supernatural or paranormal (and, for me, that includes collective consciousness, et al), then I don't need to know what particular flavour of God you uphold to be satisfied that our world operates just fine without it.

"God comes in many flavours" was actually appropriate in olden days with many flavored gods. But when that question is applied to monotheism, it becomes very problematic.
I don't like the flavour of the current God. Is God an acquired taste?

Well let's not go again into your - to my mind odd- ideas of what a mathematical function is. We've done that already elsewhere.

I agree.

But on your last point, most people (apart from Hidden Variable theorists, who are in a small minority nowadays) think Einstein was wrong about that.

Physics strongly suggests that God, if He is there, does play dice.

Well I agree with Hazen that *evolution* is a matter of *probability* and given a near infinite universal potential and *sufficient* time, these probabilities change to Implications, which are subsequently expressed in our reality. This is how I understand Bohm's philosophy.
Example: I need the die to roll a six only once for me to win the prize. But I am given a million tries at it. Statistically what is the probability of rolling one six during that many tries? Is there a secondary implication that I will win the prize?

But physics does not allow for a supernatural God to exist. So, in effect you are saying that Physics considers the evolution of the Universe and all the observed properties (constants) was a matter of pure chance, or is there an inherent potential (probability) for order?

 

[river]

Oh there is a god ; the ancients written ; cueforoms tablets proves this ; beyond any doubt.

 

[river]

The important investigation ; into this god ; is ; who is this god ; really ?

 

[river]

Mathematics has become the representation of god .

 

[exchemist]

"God comes in many flavours" was actually appropriate in olden days with many flavored gods. But when that question is applied to monotheism, it becomes very problematic.
I don't like the flavour of the current God. Is God an acquired taste?
I agree.
Well I agree with Hazen that *evolution* is a matter of *probability* and given a near infinite universal potential and *sufficient* time, these probabilities change to Implications, which are subsequently expressed in our reality. This is how I understand Bohm's philosophy.
Example: I need the die to roll a six only once for me to win the prize. But I am given a million tries at it. Statistically what is the probability of rolling one six during that many tries? Is there a secondary implication that I will win the prize?

But physics does not allow for a supernatural God to exist. So, in effect you are saying that the Universe and all the observed properties (constants) was a matter of pure chance, or is there an inherent potential (probability) for order?

Science (not physics, specifically) certainly says there is no objective evidence for a supernatural God. But plenty of scientists believe in God - explain that! The way I would do so is to say that such "evidence" as people have for God is subjective, based on subjective experience, emotions and feelings, etc. (Just so you know, I speak as a "cultural Catholic" by the way - I am personally agnostic nowadays but I do see the great value of Christianity as a guide to living one's life and as an aesthetic and moral inspiration.)

And I am making no speculations about what, if anything, comes "before" cosmology starts - if that even means anything, which I doubt. What do you think Einstein meant by God does not play dice? My understanding is he objected, emotionally, to abandoning determinism, which is what quantum theory implies you have to do, viz. the uncertainty principle, the double slit experiment, Bell's inequality and all that. It was nothing to do with the origin of the cosmos, or evolution.

But since you raise it, I think there are parallels between the mechanism of evolution and statistical thermodynamics. In both cases, you have "randomness" at the molecular level, which, operating within certain physical laws and those of statistics, leads to ordered behaviour of systems at the macroscopic scale. So God is playing dice the whole time, in fact, all around us. But, to come to your final point, yes, the order arises because there is an order in nature, which we discover and approximate by what we call the "laws of physics".

 

[river]

Scientists are simple minded ; for the most part.

 

[Sarkus]

Oh there is a god ; the ancients written ; cueforoms tablets proves this ; beyond any doubt.

You mean cuneiform tablets? How do they prove "beyond any doubt" that there is a god?

 

[Sarkus]

Scientists are simple minded ; for the most part.

Please provide support for this gross generalisation.

 

[river]

Please provide support for this gross generalisation.

Scientist can not fatham that the Universe is all that needs to be or manifest .

 

[river]

You mean cuneiform tablets? How do they prove "beyond any doubt" that there is a god?

Because of the tablets themselves .

Not that there is a god ......

 

[Write4U]

Science (not physics, specifically) certainly says there is no objective evidence for a supernatural God. But plenty of scientists believe in God - explain that! The way I would do so is to say that such "evidence" as people have for God is subjective, based on subjective experience, emotions and feelings, etc. (Just so you know, I speak as a "cultural Catholic" by the way - I am personally agnostic nowadays but I do see the great value of Christianity as a guide to living one's life and as an aesthetic and moral inspiration.)

I have said many times that Scriptures contain secular moral messages. I have 4 (slightly different) Bibles and a Who's Who in the Bible in my library. But next to it I also have the Skeptics annotated Bible/Quran/Book of Mormons.. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
But nowhere can I find a compelling reason to accept the notion of a naturally motivated supernatural
God.

And I am making no speculations about what, if anything, comes "before" cosmology starts - if that even means anything, which I doubt. What do you think Einstein meant by God does not play dice? My understanding is he objected, emotionally, to abandoning determinism, which is what quantum theory implies you have to do, viz. the uncertainty principle, the double slit experiment, Bell's inequality and all that. It was nothing to do with the origin of the cosmos, or evolution.

How about this from Einstein,

I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

But since you raise it, I think there are parallels between the mechanism of evolution and statistical thermodynamics. In both cases, you have "randomness" at the molecular level, which, operating within certain physical laws and those of statistics, leads to ordered behaviour of systems at the macroscopic scale. So God is playing dice the whole time, in fact, all around us. But, to come to your final point, yes, the order arises because there is an order in nature, which we discover and approximate by what we call the "laws of physics".

I call this order mathematical order, even if there may be an appearance of randomness. Perhaps the chaos from the inflationary epoch is not yet completely ordered.
IMO, a dynamical Universe is by definition not perfectly ordered (static).

 

[Daecon]

Scientists are simple minded ; for the most part.

I didn't know you were a scientist, river.

 

[exchemist]

I have said many times that Scriptures contain secular moral messages. I have 4 (slightly different) Bibles and a Who's Who in the Bible in my library. But next to it I also have the Skeptics annotated Bible/Quran/Book of Mormons.. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
But nowhere can I find a compelling reason to accept the notion of a naturally motivated supernatural
God.
How about this from Einstein,
I call this order mathematical order, even if there may be an appearance of randomness. Perhaps the chaos from the inflationary epoch is not yet completely ordered.
IMO, a dynamical Universe is by definition not perfectly ordered (static).

I don't think that is quite fair. To me, the splendid thing about creation is that BOTH intrinsic randomness AND intrinsic order seem to be present. It is the interplay between these two that gives rise to what we observe. The randomness is just as real as the order. And it is a very doubtful idea indeed to suggest that the randomness is gradually disappearing. On the contrary, thermodynamics tells us that, if anything, the opposite is true - heat death and all that.

Re, Einstein's religious views, he seems indeed to have sympathised with his fellow Jewish thinker, Spinoza. From what I read, that included the belief in determinism that they both apparently shared. The determinism (as opposed to what QM says) is what the "dice" comment referred to, as I said previously. Elsewhere Einstein described himself as agnostic, as he did not believe in a personal God.

But I think we are hijacking Jan's thread, so maybe we should pause.

 

[Write4U]

I don't think that is quite fair. To me, the splendid thing about creation is that BOTH intrinsic randomness AND intrinsic order seem to be present. It is the interplay between these two that gives rise to what we observe. The randomness is just as real as the order. And it is a very doubtful idea indeed to suggest that the randomness is gradually disappearing. On the contrary, thermodynamics tells us that, if anything, the opposite is true - heat death and all that.

Re, Einstein's religious views, he seems indeed to have sympathised with his fellow Jewish thinker, Spinoza. From what I read, that included the belief in determinism that they both apparently shared. The determinism (as opposed to what QM says) is what the "dice" comment referred to, as I said previously. Elsewhere Einstein described himself as agnostic, as he did not believe in a personal God.

But I think we are hijacking Jan's thread, so maybe we should pause.

OK, that will give me time to digest it all.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Which is why I re-iterated it here. The conclusion is not supported by the premise.

Or would you argue that I need to know the colour of Russell's Teapot before I can satisfactorily conclude it's not there?

I Would argue that we know what a teapot is.
A pot with a handle, spout, and a lid, in which tea is brewed and poured out.
If we didn't have a definition of a teapot, the whole nonsense about celestial teapots orbiting Jupiter would have no meaning.
So I would argue that you need to comprehend what God is, to conclude whether He exists or not.
Capise.

Agreed. Because, as I have demonstrated, it is not relevant to the discussion of its existence, any more than

You've demonstrated nowt.
Try again.

I am not asserting. I am simply dismantling your assertion. To wit: "What is God, in your opinion? You need to answer this to make sense of what you said."

You are asserting that knowledge, or some comprehension of God is irrelevant. To your credit you tried the idiotic teapot crap, but unfortunately got a slap for your trouble.

You have put forth an assertion that one must understand something to a certain level of detail to make a judgement about whether it exists.
I am showing that that is demonstrably not so, by way of something that we know agree probably doesn't exist, namely a teapot orbiting out near Mars.

And I'm showing you that we know such a phenomenon doesn't exist becausew e know what a teapot is. Are you really this dumb, or am I going to have spell everything out for you?

A separate discussion

Doesn't mean you can't address it though.
So?

What is anyone's purpose here? I like to discuss stuff. This thread is not simply a one-sided soap-boxing opportunity; it is a dialogue.

Then dialogue, and stop hiding behind stupid atheist clichés.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes Jan you are indeed correct.

This thread is a waste of time.

Alex

Everything that flows from your keyboard at present is a big cop out.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

(By the way my own view on God is that this is a concept incapable of proof. Even our scientific theories of the physical world cannot be proved true - and there is objective evidence for those, which there is not for God. )

Why do you limit yourself to the limitations of scientific theories.

Jan.