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

[JayUtah]

One would think that if an omnipotent whatever wanted me to believe it exists, it would just make me believe rather than futz around with any sort of external evidence.

That presumes humankind's importance in such a creation. Creationists propose a grandiose scale of creation in part so that they can pretend it's all for them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

How does the existence of a creator get you any closer to any sort of "god," not to mention the "god" of the New Testament (the thing you said you could prove)?

Again this is a very, very, very old game.

Buddha doesn't believe in some vague, creator God. Nobody does. People don't believe in vague esoteric concepts with absolutely no defining characteristics. Maybe it's not the Judeo-Christian God or any specific mainstream version at all... but it's not a formless nothing.

Nobody writes 12 paragraphs defending a vague something.

The Watchmaker, The First Cause... these are all apologetics, not arguments.

It's easy. You take something you believe in but can't support and you basically beg people to agree to some version it by removing more and more characteristics from it until you're left essentially nothing; a vague vagueness that vaguely does vague things vaguely in a vague way.

And as soon as something takes the baits makes even a surface level agreement to even the conceptual idea of something, boom. Reel 'em in. The foot in now in the door. Now that the other side has agreed that God (as defined as nothing doing nothing) is possible... well you don't see? We all believe in God! It's just a matter of the details! If you believe in the Vague God of No Characteristics and I believe in my exact distinct version of God, we're on the same side.

 

[aleCcowaN]

My goal is to get a feedback from the atheist members of this board, and sharpen my arguments before I present them to a scientific audience. I want to see how my opponents react to my ideas so I could present them in a clear and concise form. So far I am moving towards my objective.

And on top of your "declaration of victory" we have your surgical avoidance of a dozen posts that pulverized your argumentation.


In short, you're just honing your sophistry.

 

[JoeMorgue]

My goal is to get a feedback from the atheist members of this board, and sharpen my arguments before I present them to a scientific audience.

Yeah go before a "scientific audience" with the declaration of "I don't believe in falsifiablity and you have to assume I'm correct before I start."

Good. Luck. With. That.

 

[phiwum]

The purpose of my article was to prove that the universe was created by some. "God" in this case is nothing more than a title.
As a positivist, I do not accept the concept of falsifiability. We could debate it at some other thread. I wouldn't call my first two hypotheses falsifiable. My proof is not a deduction either. The positivists do not use the methods of deduction, they use the methods of induction. Popper used the methods of deduction, he called his doctrine "deductivism" I suggest you familiarize yourself with Popper's book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. To me his book is pathetic, but I might find it useful. Once you finish reading it, get back to me and we will discuss it.

Your view of positivism is utterly bizarre. It seems to entail that every scientific law is literally false. It is not positivism as I learned it.

 

[phiwum]

Right. "Burden of proof" is just an expression to describe who has the onus to supply evidence. "Proof" in the sense of an (unattainable) standard that must be met is not what is meant. We are talking about evidence, not proof. Well, we are. I don't know what Buddha is talking about. He's off in the pseudo-philosophical weeds.

Again, right.

 

[sylvan8798]

That is an interesting observation, to say the least. Show me how all these statements could be all true.

You have not even defined what you mean by "the universe", so I think you are in a bit of a sticky wicket, as they say.

 

[halleyscomet]

Infinite library of videotapes is the best possible scenario that assumes existence of an observer. For a positivist this is the requirement, if there is no observer the theory is false right from the start, one doesn't have to prove it.
Once the first two scenarios are excluded, the third one is automatically true.

Nonsense. A "proof" so unwieldy as to be unverifiable is of no more value than not having the "proof" at all.

One estimate for the age of the universe is 13.772 billion years.

Since you went old school and opted for "videotapes," we'll use standard VHS tapes.

We'll use the estimated mailing weight of 7.4 ox for a VHS cassette in a cardboard case.

Since most of this video will be rather dull, image quality isn't much of an issue, so we'll assume Extended Play (6 hours per tape) for most of recorded history (get it, since we're recording everything it's all recorded history!) with about 100 years worth of Standard Play tape (2 hours per tape)

For simplicity sake we'll assume only one camera and no overlap between tapes. We'll also assume a magical camera that can switch tapes without missing any time. We'll also skip leap ears, just because this is silly enough without them.

Lets start with the 100 years of interesting stuff. There's 8,760 hours in a year, so 100 years would be 876,000 hours. That's 438,000 SP tapes. That comes out to 3,241,200 ounces, or 202,575 pounds. This means to record JUST the 100 years of interesting bits, we'd need 101.2875 US tons of VHS tape.

I was going to go ahead and do the calculation for recording the rest of the history of the universe on Extended Play tapes, but I think we can already see that the "proof" being suggested is a useless pile of plastic and magnetic tape that can't be realistically verified.

 

[phiwum]

That is an interesting observation, to say the least. Show me how all these statements could be all true.

That the universe always existed (ignoring evidence to the contrary) is not contradictory to the claim that it was created by a God, who happened to be eternal in the sense of being not bound by time. Mind you, I think that's a mighty weird concept, but it is a concept that some buy.

The fact is that God has never shown his face as the creator and it's not clear how he might do so. If this is your notion of what counts as false (not what the positivists say, of course), then all three premises are false by your own standard. God doesn't seem to plausibly give us the videotapes of the Big Bang in a way that they are verifiable.

 

[phiwum]

I like people who have sense of humor. Now, moving on to more serious topics. A statement regarding the number of electrons on Mars is meaningless because it cannot be verified -- the number is in a state of flux due to the external factors such as meteor showers, etc. According to Carnap, a statement that cannot be verified is meaningless, it is neither true nor false. FYI" Carnap called certain propositions put forward by the theologians as meaningless. I would call them meaningless too, they include the statements that God knows everything in advance, God is omnipotent, etc.

You've just moved your position from claiming such statements are false to claiming they are meaningless.

Carnap would surely claim that the notion the universe was created by a Creator as meaningless as well.

 

[phiwum]

Yeah, that was the point. It's a physical fact which has an objective truth value despite your inability to discover it. The number of electrons must be either odd or even because no other possibility exists. Your inability to discover the fact does not alter its factuality. Facts exist that you cannot transform into knowledge. That's closer to what Popper was trying to say.



Irrelevant. According to mathematics the number of electrons must be either odd or even. Your inability to discover whether it's odd or even does not create some new kind of number that's neither odd or even. You're conflating the notion of knowledge with the notion of fact.



Irrelevant. You said you had a deductive proof for a proposition you're now categorizing as meaningless. Where does that leave you?

In principle, if not in fact in our lifetimes, the number of electrons on Mars could be counted. I think that this counts as a meaningful statement, per positivism. We know what evidence could be given for its truth, but we aren't technologically able to give it. That's all that positivism would require, as I understand it.

 

[The Sparrow]

And on top of your "declaration of victory" we have your surgical avoidance of a dozen posts that pulverized your argumentation.


In short, you're just honing your sophistry.

Bang on. Just like a certain statistics/shroud member, the OP as no interest in learning from the counter posts and actually potentially changing his position. Rather he wants to use the members here to help him polish his "theory".

 

[The Greater Fool]

God called, he says he's not responsible for this mess, so he's not cleaning it up.

 

[halleyscomet]

The purpose of my article was to prove that the universe was created by some. "God" in this case is nothing more than a title.

In which case you failed miserably. Do you have anything that doesn't fall apart when remedial logic is applied to it?

If you wish, I could start with this, "Someone produced the universe" Let's assume that this statement is false. Then either the statement "The universe was produced by itself" or the statement "The universe always existed" is true. This method is called ad adversum,, it is used in mathematics.

Setting aside the fact your arguments don't provide a way to choose between those possibilities, you leave out a massive number of other options.

1. The universe as we know it may not actually exist to begin with, and be a mere projection of a passing, temporary consciousness.
2. If the universe as we know it is in fact a computer simulation, as some have suggested, your claims fall flat. A computer simulated universe could, for example, procedurally generate the VHS tapes you referred to earlier, or play back an observer's camera view of the events as they were simulated in the first place. A programmer watching the simulation could also swap out the content of the tapes at will. One day the tapes would be consistent with Christian mythology, the next they're 100% Flying Spaghetti Monster.
3. Your ideology fails to take into account mixed situations, where, for example, there are entities we could otherwise call "gods" but who themselves evolved within a universe that was not created. The Star Trek universe and the Q Continuum are beyond the scope of what your ideology can test for.
4. How would you test for Mormon theology being true?
5. You make no allowances for the universe hatching from a cosmic egg, despite this being a common theme across multiple religions.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Your entire thesis is based upon shoddy arguments for addressing three out of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of possible original conditions.

Your refusal to be tied down to any specific definitions has resulted in a mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy argument of no value. You tried to give yourself wiggle room and instead castrated your own arguments.

 

[JayUtah]

In principle, if not in fact in our lifetimes, the number of electrons on Mars could be counted.

And in principle, if not in practice, it would be possible to inspect 14 billion years of videotape.

I think that this counts as a meaningful statement, per positivism. We know what evidence could be given for its truth, but we aren't technologically able to give it. That's all that positivism would require, as I understand it.

Yes. Positivism requires that the proposition be testable, without regard to the practical limitations of testing. The number of electrons on Mars is, in theory, testable and could qualify as knowledge under positivism. Similarly the notion that we would have an unbroken chain of proffered evidence from the Big Bang until now qualifies the hypothesis as positively testable. That's when Buddha equivocates and says that if we have to weigh evidence and make an inductive leap, it cannot be "verified" and thus fails the gatekeeper criteria for positivism. He mistakes empirical testability for a foisted requirement that the test, in order to be valid, must assure the preselected outcome. That something is empirically messy doesn't make it untestable in the sense the positivists conceived.

 

[halleyscomet]

The fact is that God has never shown his face as the creator and it's not clear how he might do so. If this is your notion of what counts as false (not what the positivists say, of course), then all three premises are false by your own standard. God doesn't seem to plausibly give us the videotapes of the Big Bang in a way that they are verifiable.

C.S. Lewis expressed this idea by pointing out an architect is not part of the house he designed.

 

[phiwum]

And in principle, if not in practice, it would be possible to inspect 14 billion years of videotape.



Yes. Positivism requires that the proposition be testable, without regard to the practical limitations of testing. The number of electrons on Mars is, in theory, testable and could qualify as knowledge under positivism. Similarly the notion that we would have an unbroken chain of proffered evidence from the Big Bang until now qualifies the hypothesis as positively testable. That's when Buddha equivocates and says that if we have to weigh evidence and make an inductive leap, it cannot be "verified" and thus fails the gatekeeper criteria for positivism. He mistakes empirical testability for a foisted requirement that the test, in order to be valid, must assure the preselected outcome. That something is empirically messy doesn't make it untestable in the sense the positivists conceived.

Totally agree. He is badly misrepresenting the positivists.

They would take it that God's existence (as one who creates and then lets the universe work by laws) as a meaningless assertion, as far as I understand them.

He is, however, right that Popper's philosophy of science was not positivism, I think. That's a minor point in his favor.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yeah go before a "scientific audience" with the declaration of "I don't believe in falsifiablity and you have to assume I'm correct before I start."

Good. Luck. With. That.

But according to some whack definitions in the States there are some 7 million scientists because anyone from a 6-million group with some college education ascribed as "computer sciences" is a scientist (down to bachelor degrees in keypunch)

Buddha can fill a theatre with such "scientists" who bovinely validate his "methods".

 

[phiwum]

C.S. Lewis expressed this idea by pointing out an architect is not part of the house he designed.

C.S. Lewis was brilliant. I rather liked the Screwtape Letters. I confess I never read his more popular works.

Just read Twain's "Letters from Earth", written from Satan's perspective. Really funny and insightful stuff.

 

[halleyscomet]

You are right about Big Bang -- the time didn't exist before it. But this remark has nothing to do with my presentation.

Only in certain paradigms. For example, if our universe is in fact a computer simulation, the "Big Bang" was merely the initiation of the current simulation. Time most certainly existed before it, as there would need to be a computer of some kind to run the simulation.

If the universe hatched from a cosmic egg, then time existed before the current universe, as the egg needed somewhere to hatch!