• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe?

I especially love the "I get to make stuff up and reject concepts of falsefiability, burden of proof, standards of evidence, and basically anything that make my statement in anyway intellectually meaningful because I self define as Philosophy Fanclub #242" preamble.
 
Buddha said:
As I promised, I am going to present a proof that someone created the Universe. But before doing that I am going to state my philosophical position.

I am a positivist. Being one, I reject several philosophical systems including idealism, realism, scientific realism and the Popper doctrine (he called it "deductivism"). Non-positivists might reject my proof; for example, it is not acceptable to the scientific realists and to the followers of the Popper doctrine.

From the positivist's point of view a theory or a statement based on never-ending experiment is false (scientific realists hold the opposite point of view). For example, the statement "The laws of physics will always remain in their current form" is false.

Also, for the positivist a theory based on assumption that could not be proved or disproved is false. Scientific realists see thing differently -- for them such theory could be correct.
Click to expand...
I may deal with this part later, but for now...



There is also another positivist assertion that not everyone accepts. Suppose you have three contradictory explanations of an event. If you can prove that the first two are false this automatically implies that the third one is true, you do not have to prove it. Not everyone accepts this rule -- Popper said that the third remaining statement must be falsifiable in order to be true. But the positivists reject Popper's idea of falsifiability (Popper rejected positivism in return).

Now, the proof itself. There are three contradictory statements:
1). The universe was not created, it always existed.
2).The universe came to be by itself, as a result of some process (quantum fluctuation, maybe)
3).Someone produced the universe.
Click to expand...

Why does it then have to be in this order? Why not

1) someone produced the universe

2) the universe was not created, it always existed

3) the universe came to be by itself, as a result of some process

Now how would you come to the same conclusion?
 
JoeMorgue said:
I especially love the "I get to make stuff up and reject concepts of falsefiability, burden of proof, standards of evidence, and basically anything that make my statement in anyway intellectually meaningful because I self define as Philosophy Fanclub #242" preamble.
Click to expand...

I know, right? Still, I'm thinking of addressing this part more formally. I'm doing some more reading to see if I understand the concepts I want to present.
 
Am I wrong or can the third statement not be 'disproved' using the EXACT same 'argument' as the second statement presented in the OP? If all three statements can be disproved, where does that lead us? Option 4 - the universe does not exist? ;)

- Edited for clarity.
 
Lrrr said:
Am I wrong or can the third statement not be 'disproved' using the EXACT same 'argument' as the second statement presented in the OP? If all three statements can be disproved, where does that lead us? Option 4 - the universe does not exist? ;)

- Edited for clarity.
Click to expand...
Dunno, 1, 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive. They could all be simultaneously true, or false, or any combination. On top of that, none can be demonstrated either way so that gets Buddha exactly nowhere.
 
Apathia said:
No, 700 year old Christian Apologetics is way better than this.
Click to expand...

It really is weird how much religious apologetics, even non-Christian apologetics, really does seem to operate as if Aquinas created these epic, unbeatable proofs and just dropped the mic for all eternity.

It's been a long time since I heard any argument for God that wasn't some vague variation on his nonsense.
 
Alright, I confess.

Option 5: A dummy did it in Remedial Creation class, getting the balance of matter and antimatter wrong and spawning a warped cosmos. All the other kids got universes with a Law of Reason to go along with Causality.

Dang. Another "F." I can feel Purgatory breathing down my neck. Heaven is no Paradise! :sulk:
 
Buddha said:
There is also another positivist assertion that not everyone accepts. Suppose you have three contradictory explanations of an event. If you can prove that the first two are false this automatically implies that the third one is true, you do not have to prove it.
Click to expand...
Completely wrong.

Let us consider three contradictory statements:

A. I am Abraham Lincoln's assassin.
B. James Randi is Abraham Lincoln's assassin.
C. You, Buddha, are Abraham Lincoln's assassin.

I can show that A and B are false. Both myself and James Randi were born years after Lincoln's death, so that rules us out. The only remaining option is you, Buddha. I hope you feel really bad about what you've done.

Being unverifiable, this statement is false.
Click to expand...

Completely, embarrassingly false. There are all kinds of truths about the universe that are unverifiable. The quantity of electrons on Mars right now is either an even number or an odd number. We have no way of knowing either of those. Must it then be the case that the quantity is neither even nor odd?

Either we're on the verge of completely upending some very basic mathematical concepts, or some unverifiable things are true. Take your pick.
 
The Norseman said:
I know, right? Still, I'm thinking of addressing this part more formally. I'm doing some more reading to see if I understand the concepts I want to present.
Click to expand...

The Norseman

With regard my earlier comments in this thread about your posts, I'd like to add one more thing.

Get Stuck In!:degrin:
 
Buddha said:
As I promised, I am going to present a proof that someone created the Universe. But before doing that I am going to state my philosophical position.

I am a positivist. Being one, I reject several philosophical systems including idealism, realism, scientific realism and the Popper doctrine (he called it "deductivism"). Non-positivists might reject my proof; for example, it is not acceptable to the scientific realists and to the followers of the Popper doctrine.

From the positivist's point of view a theory or a statement based on never-ending experiment is false (scientific realists hold the opposite point of view). For example, the statement "The laws of physics will always remain in their current form" is false.

Also, for the positivist a theory based on assumption that could not be proved or disproved is false. Scientific realists see thing differently -- for them such theory could be correct.

There is also another positivist assertion that not everyone accepts. Suppose you have three contradictory explanations of an event. If you can prove that the first two are false this automatically implies that the third one is true, you do not have to prove it. Not everyone accepts this rule -- Popper said that the third remaining statement must be falsifiable in order to be true. But the positivists reject Popper's idea of falsifiability (Popper rejected positivism in return).

Now, the proof itself. There are three contradictory statements:
1). The universe was not created, it always existed.
2).The universe came to be by itself, as a result of some process (quantum fluctuation, maybe)
3).Someone produced the universe.

I'll start with the first statement. Suppose you met someone who claims to be as old as the universe (obviously that person is not the Creator). He might be telling the truth or he might be a liar. However, his past is irrelevant to his claim. Naturally you would ask him what kind of evidence does he have to prove that the universe always existed. The best possible evidence would be a videotape showing all stages of the universe's development. Whether the tape is authentic or it is a fake is irrelevant -- it is of infinite length and it cannot be reviewed in its entirety. Being unverifiable, this statement is false.

Moving on to the second statement. Suppose you met an observer who came to be at the same time the universe was produced, as he claims. He also has a videotape showing the process of creation and further evolution of the universe. From the positivist's point of view this is an ideal scenario -- we have an Observer! But his account of events could be incomplete -- he might have been created after the universe had been produced, but he has no knowledge of this sequence of events. The authenticity of his videotape is irrelevant. His testimony neither proves nor disproves that the universe produced itself. For a positivist his claim is false. However, a person who subscribes to scientific realism might be willing to accept his testimony. Everything depends on the individual's personal views.

The only remaining possibility is that the universe was created by someone. Of course, a person who says that he is the Creator is, most likely, an impostor. But his sincerity or lack of it doesn't matter as far as my logical deduction goes.

It doesn't follow from my presentation that there is only one Creator; as someone noted, there might be billions of Creators. A separate proof is needed to show that the Creator is unique.

I have said nothing about the Creator's identity. He (they) could be god of the Bible, god Brahma, Adi-Buddha, Oden, etc.
Click to expand...

You're kidding us, right?

Earlier you promised this:

Buddha said:
It is possible in principle to provide an empirical proof that God exists.
Click to expand...

And your response was special pleading drivel trying to force people to choose between three options you picked using comically absurd arguments to try and differentiate them? You can't even be bothered to address your original claim!

Do crap arguments like this work for you in real life?

If you believe in a deity then have enough respect in that deity to put some God Damn effort into trying to prove he exists. That crap is what I'd expect of a first year philosophy student who got really stoned while trying to write a paper at 3:00 am the day it was due.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And not even new rubbish. This is apologetics from 700 years ago.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. He has a mighty curious view about positivism, completely unlike the term as I understand it. The notion that if it can't be verified, it's false, is nonsense to me.
 
phiwum said:
Not exactly. He has a mighty curious view about positivism, completely unlike the term as I understand it. The notion that if it can't be verified, it's false, is nonsense to me.
Click to expand...
Indeed. My understanding of positivism might be naive, but it says that if something can't be verified it can't be considered knowledge. But that has nothing to do with its actual truth value.
 
Buddha said:
The only remaining possibility is that the universe was created by someone.
Click to expand...


Just to be sociable, I'm going to agree with you that the universe was created by a creator.

So what? What useful information does this impart? How, if at all, do the daily worries of my life change in any way? What importance does it have that some creator made the universe?
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed. My understanding of positivism might be naive, but it says that if something can't be verified it can't be considered knowledge. But that has nothing to do with its actual truth value.
Click to expand...

Buddha seems to be working on achieving new levels of epic fail. He can't seem to get anything right.
 
Buddha said:
As I promised, I am going to present a proof that someone created the Universe. But before doing that I am going to state my philosophical position.

I am a positivist. Being one, I reject several philosophical systems including idealism, realism, scientific realism and the Popper doctrine (he called it "deductivism"). Non-positivists might reject my proof; for example, it is not acceptable to the scientific realists and to the followers of the Popper doctrine.

From the positivist's point of view a theory or a statement based on never-ending experiment is false (scientific realists hold the opposite point of view). For example, the statement "The laws of physics will always remain in their current form" is false.

Also, for the positivist a theory based on assumption that could not be proved or disproved is false. Scientific realists see thing differently -- for them such theory could be correct.

There is also another positivist assertion that not everyone accepts. Suppose you have three contradictory explanations of an event. If you can prove that the first two are false this automatically implies that the third one is true, you do not have to prove it. Not everyone accepts this rule -- Popper said that the third remaining statement must be falsifiable in order to be true. But the positivists reject Popper's idea of falsifiability (Popper rejected positivism in return).

Now, the proof itself. There are three contradictory statements:
1). The universe was not created, it always existed.
2).The universe came to be by itself, as a result of some process (quantum fluctuation, maybe)
3).Someone produced the universe.

I'll start with the first statement. Suppose you met someone who claims to be as old as the universe (obviously that person is not the Creator). He might be telling the truth or he might be a liar. However, his past is irrelevant to his claim. Naturally you would ask him what kind of evidence does he have to prove that the universe always existed. The best possible evidence would be a videotape showing all stages of the universe's development. Whether the tape is authentic or it is a fake is irrelevant -- it is of infinite length and it cannot be reviewed in its entirety. Being unverifiable, this statement is false.

Moving on to the second statement. Suppose you met an observer who came to be at the same time the universe was produced, as he claims. He also has a videotape showing the process of creation and further evolution of the universe. From the positivist's point of view this is an ideal scenario -- we have an Observer! But his account of events could be incomplete -- he might have been created after the universe had been produced, but he has no knowledge of this sequence of events. The authenticity of his videotape is irrelevant. His testimony neither proves nor disproves that the universe produced itself. For a positivist his claim is false. However, a person who subscribes to scientific realism might be willing to accept his testimony. Everything depends on the individual's personal views.

The only remaining possibility is that the universe was created by someone. Of course, a person who says that he is the Creator is, most likely, an impostor. But his sincerity or lack of it doesn't matter as far as my logical deduction goes.

It doesn't follow from my presentation that there is only one Creator; as someone noted, there might be billions of Creators. A separate proof is needed to show that the Creator is unique.

I have said nothing about the Creator's identity. He (they) could be god of the Bible, god Brahma, Adi-Buddha, Oden, etc.
Click to expand...

I realize this is too obvious to really bother with, but just for clarity...here's the part of the argument Buddha left out...italics indicate where I changed the wording slightly.

Moving on to the third statement. Suppose you met an observer who either came to be at the same time the universe was produced or was the entity who produced it, as he claims. He also has a videotape showing the process of creation and further evolution of the universe. From the positivist's point of view this is an ideal scenario -- we have an Observer! But his account of events could be incomplete -- he might have actually been created after the universe had been produced, but he has no knowledge of this sequence of events. The authenticity of his videotape is irrelevant. His testimony neither proves nor disproves that the universe was produced by a being. For a positivist his claim is false. However, a person who subscribes to scientific realism might be willing to accept his testimony. Everything depends on the individual's personal views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom