Proof there is a God

[PhysBang]

So we can agree that I offered this definition. Yes?

Yes. Why you later claimed not to is what is troubling.

I don't see the need for a better definition,

And this is an example of you trying to bully people. It's obvious people don't understand you, but you don't care.

as this one encompasses every aspect of God, and incorporates every belief in God (personal, impersonal, Christian, Islam, Judaism, Animism, Buddhism, Sikhism, ancient Sumerien, Babylonian, Egyptian, etc...).

That is either a lie or a very stupid statement. Given the serious theological differences even between sects within these different religious groups, your statement cannot possibly be false. Unless, of course, you mean that the statement is so vague that it could mean anything. Which gets back to my point about evangelicals avoiding specifics so that they can attempt to avoid any real look at their arguments.

I disagree.
I can't find a more comprehensive definition.

As I said, you pick only vague definitions so that you do not have to engage with your own ideas. Again, your refusal to try to be specific and to stick with vague definitions does not help your case. You seem to be making the case that religious people have no good basis for their beliefs.

 

[Billy T]

But you do have an idea of something, such as cause and effect. ... jan.

Yes. Based on all the cases we understand there is a cause of all changes, but often we do not know the cause. For example the Zika virus cause is unknown, but probably is to be found in Brazil.

In the realm of physics, the cause of the Big Bang is unknown, but probably is a statistical fluctuation. It certainly is no advance to postulate some God caused the Big Bang, as that just opens the question: What caused that god?

If you want to claim God needs no cause, then why not do that for the Big Bang instead? Or do you have some way to know that God has no cause - is an exception to the rule "Everything has a cause."

If you do, how do you know that? If "by faith" why not "by faith" know that the Big Bang has no cause instead of postulating a God for, which there is no evidence? We have a lot of evidence that the Big Bang happened, but none for the existance of God.

Postulating a god, which created the universe, and then noting that the universe exist, so that proves that god exists is simple circular reasoning.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm sure you know what I mean.

jan.

Your thinking is confused on this issue. You want to establish a rule, that all things which have a beginning have a cause. Well, if nothing has a real beginning, because all matter and energy already exist, only changed form, and things are the result of humans naming them, then you don't have a rule. Cause and effect, as the term is commonly used, only apply to things that already exist. So you can't apply that rule to things that don't yet exist. Much less a situation like the Big Bang for which normal rules of behavior don't seem to apply. Additionally, no one knows the true nature of the Big Bang, and whether it was truly the beginning of everything that could be said to exist.

 

[Sarkus]

What is up with you people?

I offered a definition, it isn't my definition, I took it from a text.
Why do you have a problem with me not taking credit for it by calling it my definition. As though I thought of it.

Referring to something as "yours" is to distinguish it from that which other people may have offered up to the discussion. It is a turn of phrase. Quite normal in English. What is "up" is frustration at you then turning round at every opportunity and saying "it's not mine!" and with that effectively disowning your introduction of it.

If you stop saying "it's not mine" every time someone refers to to "your definition" then that element of frustration would disappear.

P.s. Nice to see I'm not on your ignore list any more.
Couldn't keep away, eh?

 

[Baldeee]

But you do have an idea of something, such as cause and effect. Right?
While you may not be able to state that it is an absolute fact, you do have experience of it. Right?

I have an idea of many things, thanks.
Cause and effect?
Yes.
Creation rather than merely transformation?
No.
Do you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have an idea of many things, thanks.
Cause and effect?
Yes.
Creation rather than merely transformation?
No.
Do you?

Yes thanks.
There's not much difference between transforming something, and creating something.
Also the definition makes no mention of ''creation'', but of ''emanation''.
So we're making ground, my angry friend.

Would you accept that the universe was caused, or that the universe has always been?
Based on what you know and have experienced.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Yes thanks.
There's not much difference between transforming something, and creating something.

On that we disagree.
There is a universe of difference.
Please can you name one thing that has been created rather than is merely a transformation of pre-existing stuff?

Also the definition makes no mention of ''creation'', but of ''emanation''.

That definition, perhaps, but not all.

So we're making ground, my angry friend.

Frustrated with your MO, not angry.
And we are not making ground, unless your intent is to circle back to the valueless notion of God simply being reality?

Would you accept that the universe was caused, or that the universe has always been?
Based on what you know and have experienced.

I could accept either for purposes of discussion.
I believe neither to be true, but nor do I believe either is false.
I simply do not know.
It may have been created ex nihilo, it may simply be a transformation of what was here before, it may always have been as it is with the Big Bang just part of what it does.
It may have emanated from something, it may have spontaneously self-caused, it may be simply the fart in the ether of a passing giant space turtle.
I simply do not know.
Do you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

On that we disagree.
There is a universe of difference.
Please can you name one thing that has been created rather than is merely a transformation of pre-existing stuff?

I don't understand the question.

That definition, perhaps, but not all.

That's why we're discussing this one.

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Would you accept that the universe was caused, or that the universe has always been?
Based on what you know and have experienced.

That's just it, no one has experienced this and no one knows.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's just it, no one has experienced this and no one knows.

Based on what you do know, or have experienced?

Alex knows that the universe was not caused by God (according to him).

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your thinking is confused on this issue. You want to establish a rule, that all things which have a beginning have a cause. Well, if nothing has a real beginning, because all matter and energy already exist, only changed form, and things are the result of humans naming them, then you don't have a rule.

If you want to get really specific, there is nothing at all, if there is no mind to perceive it, let alone name them. But that's just silly. Isn't it.
We name things and object to identify them. A car is a car, and a teddy bear is a teddy bear. These are objects that are effects of causes. That's what I'm talking about.
Not the material energy which hold these forms together.

Cause and effect, as the term is commonly used, only apply to things that already exist. So you can't apply that rule to things that don't yet exist. Much less a situation like the Big Bang for which normal rules of behavior don't seem to apply. Additionally, no one knows the true nature of the Big Bang, and whether it was truly the beginning of everything that could be said to exist.

Whether or not it was the ''true'' beginning, of everything, or part of a cycle of beginnings and endings, is not the issue.
Only that at some point it came into being (visible) and went out of being,

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes. Based on all the cases we understand there is a cause of all changes, but often we do not know the cause. For example the Zika virus cause is unknown, but probably is to be found in Brazil.

Doesn't matter. If it is made of matter, then it has a cause. Do you agree?
If not why not?

In the realm of physics, the cause of the Big Bang is unknown, but probably is a statistical fluctuation. It certainly is no advance to postulate some God caused the Big Bang, as that just opens the question: What caused that god?

What's funny here is that you don't mind stating "statistical fluctuation" as a possible cause, but you'll be damned if you posit God as a possible cause.

If you want to claim God needs no cause, then why not do that for the Big Bang instead? Or do you have some way to know that God has no cause - is an exception to the rule "Everything has a cause."

For a start, I've never heard of an explosion that wasn't caused.
I think it is reasonable to assume that there are is a point where there is a point where the buck stops, and unreasonable to think it goes on ad infinitum.

If you do, how do you know that? If "by faith" why not "by faith" know that the Big Bang has no cause instead of postulating a God for, which there is no evidence? We have a lot of evidence that the Big Bang happened, but none for the existance of God.

For a start. I think common sense plays a role in naturally not thinking there are infinite causes. Scientists who propose that, work really hard to try and get it accepted, but it never really catches on. I think because we naturally know that infinite causes don't occur.
With regards ''Brahman''. We don't have to find evidence of it's existence anymore than we have to find evidence of air. It basically doesn't matter if we knew what air was, or what it consists of. I'm sure the most primitive of tribes had no need for that information. But they had to respect it. I think it is the same with Brahman.

Postulating a god, which created the universe, and then noting that the universe exist, so that proves that god exists is simple circular reasoning.

We'd better not do it then. Had we?

jan.

 

[Write4U]

Yes thanks.
There's not much difference between transforming something, and creating something.
Also the definition makes no mention of ''creation'', but of ''emanation''.
So we're making ground, my angry friend.

Would you accept that the universe was caused, or that the universe has always been?
Based on what you know and have experienced. jan.

The potential for this universe existed as a timeless latent ability, regardless if it was expressed (lucky for us), or not. If the potential for a multiverse exists, there may be many universes, or not if the right combination of conditions are not yet present.

We do know that the right conditions for this universe existed and the latent ability for this universe to exists was in fact explicated in our reality. A mathematical function and process.

You attribute these right conditions to an pre-existing intelligence, named Brahman by humans, because the only reference we have of intelligence is human intelligence. But the universe itself, having the potential for mathematical functions does not require a sentient "creator" or "assembler". It already functions in a *quasi* intelligent mathematical manner.

We have shown that the formation of say, H2O is a spontaneous phenomenon, caused by the compatibility of the values inherent in the separate particles. These are probabilistic mathematical chemical functions, requiring no intelligence, just energetic properties, compatible atomic structures, and opportunity

What element is the most abundant in the universe?
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the known Universe; helium is second. However, after this, the rank of abundance does not continue to correspond to the atomic number; oxygen has abundance rank 3, but atomic number 8.

Abundance of the chemical elements - Wikipedia ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements[/quote]

This allows us to predict that water (in some form) is abundant in the human body, so it was impossible for humans to evolve until sufficient Carbon was present along with the other necessary chemicals.

Carbon was formed later, but makes up most of the mass of the universe.

Carbon is the 15th most abundant element in the Earth's crust, and the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. Carbon's abundance, its unique diversity of organic compounds, and its unusual ability to form polymers at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth enables this element to serve as a common element of all known life. It is the second most abundant element in the human body by mass (about 18.5%) after oxygen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon

IOW, a balanced menu for the formation and evolution of bio-molecules. All that was necessary was sufficient time for the inherent potential of those elements to form and interact, even if it was probabilistic result. 14.5 billion years of chance chemical interactions and reactions in *unimaginable numbers* of chemical interactions, produced a high probability (if not an imperative) of life emerging somewhere in the universe.

If you saw the Hazen presentation you know that the earth alone was host to:
2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion different chemical reactions in its relatively short 4.5 billion years of its existence.

Why throw in a unnecessary causality (a cook), when the pot is already boiling?

 

[spidergoat]

We name things and object to identify them. A car is a car, and a teddy bear is a teddy bear. These are objects that are effects of causes. That's what I'm talking about.
Not the material energy which hold these forms together.

You place an artificial reference frame around a thing, and think it's distinct, but it's not, as you imply when you said it's just matter and energy which have been transformed. A car isn't a car to a non-human reference frame. An effect is also a cause, which means that cause and effect are also subject to your frame of reference. This is distinctly different from your notion of the beginning of all things. So you can't compare or make a rule that applies to both cases as if they are all properties of the same thing.

Whether or not it was the ''true'' beginning, of everything, or part of a cycle of beginnings and endings, is not the issue.

It is the issue, since if it's a cycle, there is no beginning, and doesn't require a first cause. Even a first cause needs explaining. If the first cause was eternal and had no beginning, then the universe itself might also have had no beginning. This is an elementary refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 

[Baldeee]

I don't understand the question.

I've asked it several times already, and you've avoided it thus far, and now is the first time you say that you don't understand it?
How peculiar.
Right, which part are you struggling with?
On one side we have things which are merely the result of transformations of that which already exists.
On the other we have things that are created - consider it to be ex nihilo if that makes it easier for you to comprehend.

Can you name something that has been created, something that is not merely the result of a transformation of that which already exists?

 

[Baldeee]

If you want to get really specific, there is nothing at all, if there is no mind to perceive it, let alone name them.

Why would you think that there is nothing at all if there is no mind to perceive it?
Do you think the moon is no longer there when people don't perceive it?
Do you think the early universe did not exist until there was some mind to perceive it into existence?

 

[Write4U]

Why would you think that there is nothing at all if there is no mind to perceive it?
Do you think the moon is no longer there when people don't perceive it?
Do you think the early universe did not exist until there was some mind to perceive it into existence?

How could a mind perceive a non-existent thing? Imagination? How did Brahman come to exist? Imagination?

 

[Billy T]

Doesn't matter. If it is made of matter, then it has a cause. Do you agree? If not why not?

That is my assumption for all changes in matter (or energy levels). I also assume the cause must exist before the change and that can't apply to the Big Bang, as there is no "before" - Time and other things were created in / by the big bang.

What's funny here is that you don't mind stating "statistical fluctuation" as a possible cause, but you'll be damned if you posit God as a possible cause.

Yes, I accept one and not the other, because I know that "statistical fluctuation" occur. By the millions each second in the universe. Out of nothing, electron - positron pair are produced by statistical fluctuation in the vacuum.

One thing about "statistical fluctuations" is the do not violate any of the conservation laws. In that example, the total charge remains zero at all times and the duration of these pairs is limited by the uncertainty principle (the time & energy product one). I. e. briefly there is 2x5.11 Mev that did not exist before, but can only exist for as long a time, T, as the product (10.22Mev x T} is less than a value specified in the uncertainty principle.

This was a huge problem a decade or more ago, as the Big Bang, created an enormous amount of energy that has persisted for more than 14 billion years - a terrible and embarrassing violation of the limit on the allowed by the uncertainty ExT product.

However, we now have evident that the Big Bang, did much more than create just matter (and it rest mass energy). It made dark matter too which also has rest mass energy AND dark energy which is negative keeping the total energy still zero, as it always was.

The dark or “negative energy” seems to have "pushing gravity" and is responsible for the ACCELERATING separation between the galaxies. As their normal gravitational mutual attraction is decreasing (with inverse square of their separation) the negative energy gravity is growing ever stronger in comparison. Hence the acceleration of them away from each other.

I don't reply specifically to rest of your post, except to note many facts, especially on a quantum scale, make strong violation of "common sense."

I actually did an experiment (posted several times in detail) where a photon was at times about a meter from its self! Or each goes thru two separated slits.


SUMMARY: There is lots of evidence for violations of “common sense” and "statistical fluctuation" creating something out of nothing; but NO evidence for the existence of God. That is a belief many still hold, but their number is decreasing as ever more people want their beliefs to be supported by observable and testable facts.

PS Thanks for replying. Most of my posts, all the recent ones, have had none. I was assuming you had me on "ignore." I try to be civil and present logical arguments.

 

[wellwisher]

Statistics fluctuation is a religion for those who can't figure out the reasons. Like the theists who uses God as an explanation behind creation out of nothing, statistical fluctuations can also make something out of nothing, without us ever having to explain how. We are required to blindly accept this. There is no difference between the two.

Statistics is the slow little bother of God. He can't do anything with deliberation, but rather does everything blindfolded and by accident. Science uses the simple little brother of God to create the universe.

 

[Write4U]

Statistics fluctuation is a religion for those who can't figure out the reasons. Like the theists who uses God as an explanation behind creation out of nothing, statistical fluctuations can also make something out of nothing, without us ever having to explain how. We are required to blindly accept this. There is no difference between the two.

No, we need not blindly accept the occurrence of statistical fluctuations. They have been tested and proven.

Statistical fluctuations are fluctuations in quantities derived from many identical random processes. They are fundamental and unavoidable. It can be proved that the relative fluctuations reduce as the square root of the number of identical processes.
Statistical fluctuations are responsible for many results of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, including phenomena such as shot noise in electronics.

Description[edit]
When a number of random processes occur, it can be shown that the outcomes fluctuate (vary in time) and that the fluctuations are inversely proportional to the square root of the number of processes.

Examples[edit]
As an example that will be familiar to all, if a fair coin is tossed many times and the number of heads and tails counted, the ratio of heads to tails will be very close to 1 (about as many heads as tails); but after only a few throws, outcomes with a significant excess of heads over tails or vice versa are common; if an experiment with a few throws is repeated over and over, the outcomes will fluctuate a lot.
An electric current so small that not many electrons are involved flowing through a p-n junction is susceptible to statistical fluctuations as the actual number of electrons per unit time (the current) will fluctuate; this produces detectable and unavoidable electrical noise known as shot noise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_fluctuations

Statistics is the slow little bother of God. He can't do anything with deliberation, but rather does everything blindfolded and by accident. Science uses the simple little brother of God to create the universe.

C'mon wellwisher, you can do better than to invent a blind little Brother (bother?), who does things by accident and is subject to scientist's creation of the universe? Before anyone else rips you apart on this you may want to clarify exactly what it is you are trying to convey.

So far you have come up with a blind little brother of God who does things by accident? Is the Creator not responsible for everything that happens in the universe? And do we have two Gods now, one omniscient and perfect and his little brother who is blind, does things randomly, and is the slave of science? Where is that written

Personally, as an atheist I like the blind little brother of God. The way this little brother functions seems much closer to reality than his Big Brother Almighty God.

Being generous, I can find a hint of what you are trying to say. "Big Brother God" is representative of the universal Constants, while "blind little brother god" represents the random fluctuations in extremely large numbers of events. Is my interpretation correct? If not, please explain.