Proof of God

[BillyJoe]

Tuff room, BillyJoe.
And your a skeptic, imagine that~!

Hi edge.
Hey, what ever happened to your thread on dowsing?
Did you ever get to go to the ?magnetic valley
(so long ago I can't remember the details)

 

[BillyJoe]

If God remains undetectable, then God remains irrelevant. If we exhaust all avenues of knowledge and still are unable to determine what created the Universe, then and only then would such a God be relevant; and then, only in a purely academic sense.

Depends on what you mean by irrelevant.
If god created the universe, he would certainly not be irrelevant, because without him we would not exist.

The doubt that often plagues me (for I do believe in a Deist-sort of God, though perhaps a bit more interactive), is what if, in creating the universe, God died? That is, that God was the Creator, but the very act of creating a matter-and-energy, empirically comprehensible universe resulted in God's death? Suppose that our very bodies, our stars, our galaxies, and all that we see and seem is just the exploding materia that made up God's being?

Sounds a little like panentheism.

 

[BillyJoe]

You only needed a so-called god if you don't what to drop dead and be no more, end of story.

Need has nothing to do with whether god exists or not.
Agreed, though, that a deistic god is not necessarily of much use if there is no afterlife. On the other hand, who knows what he has in mind.

 

[BillyJoe]

There's even a few that gamble on the extremely low probability of your exact material configuration (complete with memories) coming back together again over the infinite expanse of future time.

Oh, holy $#!+...........Zaayrdragon!!!

 

[BillyJoe]

With an unlimited amount of universes, this is not hard to do.

By unlimited, do you perhaps mean inifinite?
Interesting concept that: infinite.
Has almost a god like ring to it, doesn't it?

 

[BillyJoe]

Scientists right now are working on a way to harness latent stupidity. Should they be successful, we'll be able to create as many universes as we want to.

Stupidity -> simplicity -> nothing.
And, from nothing, many universes!!!

Hey, that's almost cleverly funny.

 

[Paulhoff]

By unlimited, do you perhaps mean inifinite?
Interesting concept that: infinite.
Has almost a god like ring to it, doesn't it?

Unlimited, inifinite, daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

And no, in no way does it have a so-called god like ring to it.

Paul

 

[Z]

Oh, holy $#!+...........Zaayrdragon!!!

Better be careful, BJ - new forum rules, you know. I won't report it, but others might. Just warning ya.

You didn't KNOW I was zaayrdragon?

 

[Paulhoff]

Stupidity -> simplicity -> nothing.
And, from nothing, many universes!!!

Hey, that's almost cleverly funny.

And from nothing an unlimited so-called god..............

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

Well, that's a refreshing change from the presumptious talk-down-to-you of the delusionally self-confident young whipper-snapper, Mobyseven.

Yeah, I noticed your slight reluctance to accept that this thread was all about educating you that you were wrong.

Stop making all these alterations to my words dammit!

Hehe. Well, in my post I was looking at the verifiability of "G exists" instead of the falsifiability of "G does not exist". The latter is logically equivalent but you have the think "around three corners", as we say. I am a friend of simplicity. It was Oncle Albert who said "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler"

Thank-you.
I thought I was going crazy.

I thought you thought so.

If an unobservable god created the universe, then the origin of the universe is supernatural. That being so, there could never be a scentific (that is to say, natural) explanation for the origin of the universe.
Unless, of course, in addition to a supernatural explanation, there was also a natural explanation. Hmm...didn't think of that.

Why not? Man can make up an arbritrary number of supernatural universal claims. I like e.g. Russell's nice idea:

I believe btw that the whole universe, including all our memories, theories and religions, was created 20 minutes ago by God Quitzlipochtli. Who can prove the opposite?

Herzblut

 

[Belz...]

Well, if these:

That something seems UNLIKELY is irrelevant. What MATTERS is whether or not it's true. And what makes it true is evidence.

Why the hell not ? Even if you have no way to MEASURE time, it doesn't follow that time can't exist.

Had anything to do with one another, I might understand your reaction.

However, since they don't, you just look silly... HEY!! What's "ethics" ?

 

[Belz...]

Firstly, there cannot be a timeless event.
An event takes time.

True, but as I said our language is ill-conceived to describe timelessness.

And I'm pretty sure you know what I meant.

Secondly, it takes time to observe this event.

Perhaps, but then again, since we've never seen anything that's timeless, we're just speculating.

Okay, so now You come up with a universe, which I deduce to be an unobservable universe, and I allude to the fact that this reminds me of that unobservable god.

Uh-huh, but I contend that the two are very different, because we've never had any indication that anything like your god, especially the unobservable kind, exist, while we know of at least ONE universe, so it follows that it may be possible for more to exist. 1 > 0.

I said: "But we are dealing with our universe, aren't we?"
And you reply: "Irrelevant. You are making a universal statement".
I couldn't perhaps be making a universal statement about our universe, by any chance, could I?

I am completely uninterested in arguing semantics or typos. If that's youre fun, then by all means, pester somebody else. However, since you know that by "universal" I meant "absolute", or at least I hope you know, then we can proceed with the actual argument, no ?

I wouldn't have a problem if it was possible to unambiguously know what you mean by what you say. When what you say seems totally irrelevant to what I've said, I don't even know how to begin responding. Do I assume you have misread me? Do I assume I have misread you? Have we misread each other?

I'll enveadour to be clearer in the future, then.

Here is a case in point:
I have to go back several posts to even make sense of what you are saying. Here they are:

You make a statement, which I know to be false

YOU know it to be false ? That'll be a very good thing to tell all those physicists, then.

, so I ask you for a reference to back up your claim. You tell me to look it up myself.

Sorry, but I seldom have more than a few minutes to post, here, so once I'm through with my subscribed threads for the day, I have precious little time to google stuff. I'll try to find some time to provide links for that, unless you decide to do that, yourself.

I hope you now understand that three word replies are not sufficient, although I suspect you do it deliberately in order to not actually say anything or to cover up the fact that you are not actually answering what is put to you.

Not at all. I'm just overestimating your ability to understand stuff.

However how, without time or space, can there be chaos as you said in the first quote above? The answer is that there cannot be.

Excellent. That's another bright contribution you can make to science. Go for it.

So your last quote in the series is incorrect. So, contrary to what you said, we don't agree. And you are wrong. Perhaps, regarding chaos you were thinking of what occurs immediately after or before a singularity, where there is no longer zero spacial dimensions and zero time.

Nope, sorry.

Here you are reduced to a single word reply.

What ? So now I have a minimum word-count in my replies ?

Forgive me but I thought you were going to supply this evidence!!
I know, I know.....look it up yourself.

You want me to provide evidence for an already-working theory in order to prove a negative ? That's interesting. Stupid, but interesting.

My point was that the explanations are completely weird.

I know that, but it doesn't change a thing. They're either true or not, and what you or I (both of us, I'm sure) find them weird won't change that.

But that is also part of my point. If such weird and bizarre explanations could turn out to be true, how can god be dismissed as a possibility

E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E.

They turn out to be true if supported by EVIDENCE.

There is still the problem of how to create mass/energy and gravity from zero. How to make it happen, as it were.

Again, the first law may not hold at some point.

The laws of physics predict quantum fluctuations as a means of getting something from nothing. Where do the laws come from? In other words, what makes a quantum fluctuation even a possibility.

I don't know.

But that singularity we talked about, that non-dimensional, zero-energy thingamagig, is about the simplest thing you can imagine without having nothing. And since there isn't nothing, obviously, that seems like a very reasonable "starting" point.

 

[edge]

Hi edge, it's really hot here in the foothills. I have been taking it very slow since my last surgery but the healing is going well.

How's your life going? I know life can be rough at times, but God is still good! Everyday is another day to be thankful and give God the glory!

I know and I do, and it's going pretty good, sometimes to see we must endure.
The climate is definitely changing.
There is a dramatic difference here since the 80s.
I was here in 82 till 88 and came back 2003 till now, I can tell, it’s pretty obvious.

Hi edge.
Hey, what ever happened to your thread on dowsing?
Did you ever get to go to the ?magnetic valley
(so long ago I can't remember the details)

I will e-mail this response, as it will take away from the discussion.

 

[Belz...]

"There is no god," is falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.
The existence of god cannot be demonstrated.
Therefore, "There is no god" is not falsifiable.

I am saying that, if it is impossible to prove that god exists, then it is impossible to disprove that god doesn't exist, because the only way to disprove that god does not exist is to prove that god exists.

Where is the logical error?

The error is that "there is no god" is STILL falsifiable. It becomes unfalsifiable only in practice, and only if you define "there is a god" as ALSO unfalsifiable.

 

[Belz...]

Depends on what you mean by irrelevant.
If god created the universe, he would certainly not be irrelevant, because without him we would not exist.

But then he would be detectable, in principle, which is not what your hypothesis states. Therefore he is irrelevant, in your hypothesis.

NOTE: Careful now, Billy. You're getting more and more entangled in Tu Quoque.

 

[Mobyseven]

The error is that "there is no god" is STILL falsifiable. It becomes unfalsifiable only in practice, and only if you define "there is a god" as ALSO unfalsifiable.

Which is exactly what I already said, despite BillyJoe's assertion that I did not explain this.

Certainly, if god cannot be observed then we will never falsify the claim, "There is no god."

Of course, if god does not exist, then we will still never falsify the claim, "There is no god."

It doesn't make it an unfalsifiable claim. It just makes your argument weaker than Woody Allen after an oriental massage.

 

[BillyJoe]

Better be careful, BJ - new forum rules, you know. I won't report it, but others might. Just warning ya.

I didn't know there was a change in forum rules.
I would be astounded if this wouldn't pass though.
Perhaps you should report it and we'll all learn something about the rules.

You didn't KNOW I was zaayrdragon?

That quote was a dead giveaway.

 

[BillyJoe]

Why not? Man can make up an arbritrary number of supernatural universal claims. I like e.g. Russell's nice idea:

I believe btw that the whole universe, including all our memories, theories and religions, was created 20 minutes ago by God Quitzlipochtli. Who can prove the opposite?

Well, who can?
The unobserbvable deistic god created the universe and then p!$$ed o##.
It doesn't matter if he just formulated the laws, or triggered the big bang, or decided not to wait 15 million years and created it whole 20 minutes ago.
How does science touch him?

 

[Herzblut]

Well, who can?
The unobserbvable deistic god created the universe and then p!$$ed o##.
It doesn't matter if he just formulated the laws, or triggered the big bang, or decided not to wait 15 million years and created it whole 20 minutes ago.
How does science touch him?

Science does not touch him at all. It's busy enough researching other stuff. Stuff, that science has itself restricted to. Supernaturalism is outside of this self-restriction.

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

Well, who can?
The unobserbvable deistic god created the universe and then p!$$ed o##.
It doesn't matter if he just formulated the laws, or triggered the big bang, or decided not to wait 15 million years and created it whole 20 minutes ago.
How does science touch him?

It doesn't, so why have a so-called god then, since it can be anything, it has no meaning, and there is nothing to be learned from it.

The core of science is gaining knowledge, which if I am not mistaken is also at the core of what many people want also, and what’s more you really can’t separate science from people because people are the scientist.

So it becomes, what touches what is unobservable and unknowable and is therefore not there.

Paul