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

[P.J. Denyer]

Then that seems to me the perfect basis for a proof of the nonexistence of God. The Judeo-Christian God is defined as omnipotent, meaning he is capable of any conceivable task. However, there is only one way that the claim may be tested that a specific entity is capable of any conceivable task, which is by exhaustion; that entity must demonstrate the capability to perform every conceivable task. But there is an infinite set of possible tasks, so the only way to prove God's omnipotence, and hence existence, is a never-ending experiment. Since the claim that God exists can only be based on a never-ending experiment, by your own axioms the statement that God exists is therefore false.

Dave

[/THREAD][/THEOLOGY]

Eta:
[/BUDDHA]

 

[phiwum]

Then that seems to me the perfect basis for a proof of the nonexistence of God. The Judeo-Christian God is defined as omnipotent, meaning he is capable of any conceivable task. However, there is only one way that the claim may be tested that a specific entity is capable of any conceivable task, which is by exhaustion; that entity must demonstrate the capability to perform every conceivable task. But there is an infinite set of possible tasks, so the only way to prove God's omnipotence, and hence existence, is a never-ending experiment. Since the claim that God exists can only be based on a never-ending experiment, by your own axioms the statement that God exists is therefore false.

Dave

I think that's reasonable. It depends slightly on whether we regard logical impossibilities as something not beyond the realm of omnipotence, but you've not committed to that notion, which I think is the right path.

If, in the other hand, we allow omnipotence to include the ability to do the logically impossible, then an omnipotent being could easily prove his abilities.

If not, then something which merely contradicts scientific laws only suggests that we don't know what the real laws are.

 

[JayUtah]

...which is by exhaustion; that entity must demonstrate the capability to perform every conceivable task. But there is an infinite set of possible tasks, so the only way to prove God's omnipotence, and hence existence, is a never-ending experiment.

That's Popper in a nutshell. Experiments have to end to have any scientific value. When they end, we might be able to draw a conclusion inductively by making a reasonable leap. But the price paid for the conclusion is that the conclusion must be "forever tentative" (his words). That is, we can conclude that a being is omnipotent based on a substantial number of completed tasks. And that conclusion will be shattered as soon as he fails a task. Omnipotence is not knowledge in a positivist sense, in that case. But is it knowledge in a philosophically valid and useful sense? Yes. Buddha doesn't think much of Popper, but he also doesn't understand positivism either.

 

[SOdhner]

He read a book once and so now has a much better grasp on philosophy, and can look down his nose at you and cluck his tongue at you for being so unsophisticated about it.

You know, I should write a book. I should give it an intriguing title and then ensure that it is listed enough places that people can confirm it is a real book but also make certain it is totally unavailable.

And then anyone who wants, on any subject, can just refer to it. Does someone think you're wrong about something? Well they should really read the book first. Do they have an opinion that is inconvenient to you? Point out that really, if they haven't even read that book there's no point in discussing anything with them.

It takes this kind of stupid gatekeeping to the final extreme.

 

[aleCcowaN]

And that conclusion will be shattered as soon as he fails a task...

If "he" fails to commit suicide or "he" fails to create another omnipotent being, for instance (just following Aquinas and the other enfants terribles)

 

[sylvan8798]

And that conclusion will be shattered as soon as he fails a task. Omnipotence is not knowledge in a positivist sense, in that case. But is it knowledge in a philosophically valid and useful sense? Yes. Buddha doesn't think much of Popper, but he also doesn't understand positivism either.

I have it on reliable "authority" that God can't lie. So there's that.

 

[abaddon]

And yet again, we sit in the theatre, in the dark, all alone, staring at an empty stage marvelling in the silence at the old echoes of jaded tap dancing routines from years long faded into a past illuminated only by the eternal spotlight of nostalgia.

 

[abaddon]

Did proof turn up yet?

 

[Zivan]

Did proof turn up yet?

According to Buddha it did, he provided it but everyone on this thread is simply too stooopid to understand it. Except Buddha.

 

[halleyscomet]

According to Buddha it did, he provided it but everyone on this thread is simply too stooopid to understand it. Except Buddha.

Sounds like Dunning-Kruger in the field of philosophy. He doesn’t actually understand any of the philosophy he’s regurgitating. It’s a shame he’s merging his muddled thinking with extreme hubris. If he weren’t so arrogant about his conclusions he might learn something.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If, in the other hand, we allow omnipotence to include the ability to do the logically impossible, then an omnipotent being could easily prove his abilities.

Yes, I've tried to get away with that one before . But in that case, the existence of omnipotence requires an over-riding of logic, so it seems to me that, given that definition of omnipotence, a logical proof of the existence of God is by definition impossible.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, I've tried to get away with that one before . But in that case, the existence of omnipotence requires an over-riding of logic, so it seems to me that, given that definition of omnipotence, a logical proof of the existence of God is by definition impossible.

Oh dear, you're now in the out-group of scientific realism too, which means Buddha can wave his hands at positivism and declare you out of style and therefore not worth his prodigious (but prohibitively valuable) attention. Of course Buddha can't decide whether his proof is inductive, deductive, empirical, or some contrived combination of several methods. He seems to be keeping that especially fluid with judiciously placed "typos." His "empiricism" is to imagine a situation where some contrived empiricism cannot be met allegedly on positivist terms, misuse positivism to declare those situations false, conclude deductively that his proffered conclusion must hold, and declare positivist requirements irrelevant to it. And this is apparently some enlightened new philosophy that he's going to use to challenge theories in physics. Did I miss anything?

 

[Buddha]

Not everybody believes that I do not have time to reply to all posts. I cannot prove directly that I am telling the truth; however I can indirectly prove that. I am going to respond to the strongest criticism that I know about of the idea of “omnipotent god who knows everything beforehand”. I am amazed that none of my opponents had mentioned it so far.

This critique is attributed to Sagan, probably because he elevated it to the state of perfection However, it has been known for centuries. For more details you could read Sagan’s articles available on the Internet.

In a nutshell – a god who knows everything in advance doesn’t have freedom of choice because he cannot change his own futuristic predictions. Thus such god doesn’t have free will and he is a slave to his own rules. Obviously such god cannot rule the universe.
On a historic note, Buddha also criticized this concept. He said that it is illogical because its gives a serial killer a free pass because he is not responsible for his own actions and should not be punished. But god punishes him anyway, so it looks like god makes a mistake and condemns an innocent person for it instead of blaming it on himself.

In the east this concept was promulgated by the followers of Zoroastrianism and several other religions in Buddha’s region. Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion with its “omnipotent god”
Frankly, this concept looks utterly ridiculous to me.

In the West this concept was developed by the demented Jewish priests who wrote Talmud and later was borrowed by the equally stupid Christian theologians. I see almost all of them, including St. Augustin, Spinoza, etc., as complete idiots for many reasons. The only Christian theologian whom I accept is Archbishop Berkeley.

The critics of this idea are correct, an “omnipotent god” who has a complete knowledge of future doesn’t exist. The idiotic clerics insist that their idea is based on The Old Testament. But this is not true, the Bible says that God doesn’t know everything in advance. According to the Bible, God regretted that he produced the Flood. Apparently he didn’t know in advance that certain conditions would leaf him to irrational actions.

From logical standpoint, ability to have complete knowledge of future events and ability to create a universe are not related to each other. Neither one of them is a cause of another one.

 

[halleyscomet]

Oh dear, you're now in the out-group of scientific realism too, which means Buddha can wave his hands at positivism and declare you out of style and therefore not worth his prodigious (but prohibitively valuable) attention. Of course Buddha can't decide whether his proof is inductive, deductive, empirical, or some contrived combination of several methods. He seems to be keeping that especially fluid with judiciously placed "typos." His "empiricism" is to imagine a situation where some contrived empiricism cannot be met allegedly on positivist terms, misuse positivism to declare those situations false, conclude deductively that his proffered conclusion must hold, and declare positivist requirements irrelevant to it. And this is apparently some enlightened new philosophy that he's going to use to challenge theories in physics. Did I miss anything?

Only that he appears to have extracted the bulk of his argument from his lower abdomen after having consumed a large quantity of alphabet soup.

 

[JayUtah]

Not everybody believes that I do not have time to reply to all posts.

That's right, because it's the most common excuse given when a claimant gets in over his head. He has time, as you do, to keep preaching his gospel, but little or no time to address the responses -- again, as you do.

I am going to respond to the strongest criticism that I know about...

As opposed to answering your critics. This is how we know you're lying. You have plenty of time to talk about what you want to talk about, but little time to talk about what other people challenge you on.

I am amazed that none of my opponents had mentioned it so far.

As long as you freely admit you're ignoring your critics in favor of railing against a straw man.

The only Christian theologian whom I accept is Archbishop Berkeley.

...whose proof has been addressed sufficiently here, with no rejoinder from you.

Rest of your post omitted because it's your now-standard pivot. You clearly cannot address the fundamental errors in your proof and the fundamental errors in your understanding. So you're shifting into "teacher mode," groping for something you can pretend to explain for your oh-so-stupid critics and gaslight everyone into thinking you're still some unsung genius and your critics are missing the "obvious" rebuttals.

Let me be perfectly clear: I don't believe you when you say you don't have time to answer your critics. You clearly have the time to pontificate because that's all you've done for the past three days. You choose not to address your critics, probably because you know you can't.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Not everybody believes that I do not have time to reply to all posts. I cannot prove directly that I am telling the truth; however I can indirectly prove that. I am going to respond to the strongest criticism that I know about of the idea of “omnipotent god who knows everything beforehand”. I am amazed that none of my opponents had mentioned it so far.

You've been taken to task for wasting time addressing other things than the arguments raised in the thread while at the same time complaining that you don't have enough time to address those arguments. In what universe do you think that an appropriate response to this is to address a completely different argument to the ones raised in the thread?

Dave

 

[Hokulele]

Not everybody believes that I do not have time to reply to all posts. I cannot prove directly that I am telling the truth; however I can indirectly prove that. I am going to respond to the strongest criticism that I know about of the idea of “omnipotent god who knows everything beforehand”. I am amazed that none of my opponents had mentioned it so far.

All this really proves is that you cannot address the relevant criticisms, so you are reduced to addressing irrelevant ones.

 

[Buddha]

I would like to say few words about my experience of using inductive logic.

One of my tasks as a control systems engineer was to build models of semiconductor processes so they could be used to keep the parameters such as the speed of flow of chemicals, temperature, etc., within certain limits. These models were based on sparse experimental data, so my colleagues and I were using inductive methods by making generalizations supported by empirical data. The processes were so complex that we could built only approximate models of them.

Since our models didn’t deal with universal statements, they were not falsifiable according to Popper, which would make them false. But they worked for us because we could reach the desired goal.

I would say that 99% of control system models are not falsifiable because they are not universal. Only 1% of models meet the Popper requirements because they provide complete description of their processes based on the equations of classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory. One of few such models is the one involving movement of a spaceship subjected to a planet’s gravitational field.

Well, I am running out of time now. I am sitting in my office and getting ready to go to another end of Manhattan to interview one of our clients (I work for a consulting firm). Perhaps some of my critics are retired and I have a deep respect for their past work. The others might be unemployed. Still some might be self-employed and I envy them. I was self-employed for some time, but then my income went down due to competition, and I had to find a regular job.
I will respond to the posts tomorrow
Buddha out.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Man this the Gus Van Savant's remake of Psycho of threads.

"I have a bad understand of a philosophy that I think lets me make a claim without logic, evidence of reason, oh lordy I can't keep up with all these responses even though I have time to dump page long info dumps into the thread."

I can't wait for the "I need a spokesperson for the other side, my thread needs special rules, fringe reset" chapters.

 

[JayUtah]

...they were not falsifiable according to Popper, which would make them false.

No. That is not what "falsifiable" means. This is a basic concept you don't understand. "Not falsifiable" means its truth value cannot be determined. "False" is a truth value.

I would say that 99% of control system models are not falsifiable because they are not universal.

Yet you ship products and services based on them and support them at your expense. Per Popper, you reach a conclusion that is reasonably supported to some desired degree by evidence and you understand that some future event -- e.g., failure in the field -- may ultimately falsify your conclusion that your product is perfectly sound. You don't understand Popper at all.

None of this has anything to do with your proof for the existence of God.

I am sitting in my office...

You have time to repeatedly recount irrelevant details of your life and career. Therefore I conclude that you're lying when you say you don't have time to respond to your critics.