Proof of God

[BillyJoe]

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

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

Perhaps. But we can, at least, say that it takes time for something to happen.

it takes time to observe this event.

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

Observing takes time, therefore a timeless event, if it isn't an oxymoron, could not be observed.

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 could have sworn I already conceded this point.

YOU know it to be false [There's no time in a singularity, and yet there's chaos there] ? That'll be a very good thing to tell all those physicists, then.

I said I know it to be false that a feature of a singularity is chaos.
I spent a little time googling it (I also can spare only a little time), but could find no reference to chaos being a feature of a singularity.

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

Or perhaps you're overestimating your ability to explain stuff.

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

You are the one claiming that chaos is a feature of a singularity. I'm claiming that it can't be because there is zero space and zero time in a singularity.

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

Not "in order to prove a negative".
Just evidence for those alternative theories [to god] that you seem to believe we have. What theories do we have that explain something out of nothing and what evidence supports them?

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.

Not disagreeing.
I just find it interesting that you have no problem with backwards causation in time and the interconnectedness of all quantum particles in the universe, but, at the same time are happy to totally dismiss any possibility that god may exist.

E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E.
They turn out to be true if supported by EVIDENCE

That is actually part of my point.
Here we have evidence for absolutely weird things happening for which we can only offer absolutely bizarre explanations, but, in the face of all this, you are prepared to say "there is no god".
In view of quantum weirdness, perhaps we should be a little more circumspect about what we think we can dismiss.

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

No, I mean why is there something rather than nothing?
How did the possibility of something arise?
What caused the possibility of a quantum fluctuation, if that is the reason for something out of nothing?

I don't know.

Well, that's my point, we 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.

Except that it contains within it all that has come after it.
And I'm not sure how simple an object of infinite mass, infinite gravity, infinite density, infinite spacetime curvature occupying zero volume can actually be.

 

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe:
"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.

I don't understand a word of this.
It's falsifiable (what? in theory?), it's unfalsifiable in practice?, if defined as unfalsifiable?
There must be something profound here that I am missing.
Blessed if I know what it is.

 

[BillyJoe]

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

God creates the laws of physics and the initial conditions and disapppears.
Science discovers the laws and initial conditions but is unable to explain the origin of these laws and initial conditions.
God is undetectable and not irrelevant.

 

[BillyJoe]

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

You agree then.

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

I agree.

It doesn't make it an unfalsifiable claim.

Yep, there is something really weird going on here.

It just makes your argument weaker than Woody Allen after an oriental massage.

You do realise you're responding to Belz.

 

[Z]

God creates the laws of physics and the initial conditions and disapppears.
Science discovers the laws and initial conditions but is unable to explain the origin of these laws and initial conditions.
God is undetectable and not irrelevant.

I disagree. God is both undetectable and irrelevant in that case. As are the origin of the laws and initial conditions.

Reason: In both cases, being undetectable, they have no effect upon the existent universe. They cannot help or harm mankind, they cannot extend our lives or shorten them. They have no power to punish or reward us, to teach us or threaten us. Being undetectable, such a God/origin can do nothing for us or to us, and is therefore utterly irrelevant.

If, at any point, God shows that it can have some effect on the existant universe, then God becomes detectable and relevant once more. Of course, that also means that 'There is no God' becomes falsified.

Further, in the situation you posit, BJ, God is no more relevant than the Great Turtle or the Arkleseizure or superstring collisions or the Matrix On-Switch or a million other potential origins. All of them exist as vague ideas, theories, etc. All undetectable. And, ultimately, ALL IRRELEVANT.

You claim that the God in the scenario above is relevant? I'm claiming now that the Universe was created by a vast, undetectable Dragon - that the Universe and all its laws and rules and material and energy is like a pearl, protecting the Dragon's sensitive innards from an annoying bit of detritus. Is that Dragon now relevant? And if not, why not?

 

[BillyJoe]

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.

I don't have a so called god.
(Category 6 remember)

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.

Yes. Except science is more about reducing our uncertainty.

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

Seems that's our disagreement.

 

[BillyJoe]

I disagree. God is both undetectable and irrelevant in that case. As are the origin of the laws and initial conditions.

Reason: In both cases, being undetectable, they have no effect upon the existent universe. They cannot help or harm mankind, they cannot extend our lives or shorten them. They have no power to punish or reward us, to teach us or threaten us. Being undetectable, such a God/origin can do nothing for us or to us, and is therefore utterly irrelevant.

The reason god is relevant in that scenario is that we would not be here if not for him. The fact that we never find out that we would not be here if not for him is irrelevant. The deistic god disappears after the creation of the initial laws and the initial conditions. So, no, he has no relevance thereafter.

If, at any point, God shows that it can have some effect on the existant universe, then God becomes detectable and relevant once more. Of course, that also means that 'There is no God' becomes falsified.

I won't disagree with that.

Further, in the situation you posit, BJ, God is no more relevant than the Great Turtle or the Arkleseizure or superstring collisions or the Matrix On-Switch or a million other potential origins. All of them exist as vague ideas, theories, etc. All undetectable. And, ultimately, ALL IRRELEVANT.

I don't mind what you call him, or how you fantasise about how he did it.

You claim that the God in the scenario above is relevant? I'm claiming now that the Universe was created by a vast, undetectable Dragon - that the Universe and all its laws and rules and material and energy is like a pearl, protecting the Dragon's sensitive innards from an annoying bit of detritus. Is that Dragon now relevant? And if not, why not?

As I say, I don't mind what you call him, or how you fantasise about how he did it.

 

[Z]

Ah, but you don't KNOW that you wouldn't be here, if not for him. If God hadn't created ALL-THAT-IS, perhaps the Great Green Arkleseizure would have. Perhaps a million years hence, mankind WILL discover the origin of all rules and such, and it won't be God after all. Perhaps it's all a loop, and the end of Mankind is the creation of Mankind's universe...

So we can speculate all we like, but none of those speculations are relevant.

 

[BillyJoe]

Ah, but you don't KNOW that you wouldn't be here, if not for him.

Correct. I have never said I can prove "there is a god".

If God hadn't created ALL-THAT-IS, perhaps the Great Green Arkleseizure would have.

I don't mind what you call him.

Perhaps a million years hence, mankind WILL discover the origin of all rules and such, and it won't be God after all.

Then we can truely say "there is no god".

Perhaps it's all a loop, and the end of Mankind is the creation of Mankind's universe....

Weider things have turned out to be true.

So we can speculate all we like, but none of those speculations are relevant.

Unless they are true.
Backwards in time causation and the interconnectedness of all quantum particles are really just speculative explanations about what we observe at the quantum level. But something weird like that has to be true.
And despite the word games, something weird like something from nothing or time without beginning must also be true.
You can't slam the door shut.

 

[Faithkills]

Right. I wouldn't know how to demonstrate G's existence. Anybody who makes the claim that G's existence is verifiable has to show how. Just declaring a statement to be verifiable doesn't make it so.

God could easily demonstrate himself. Poof, god appears on the playfield during the superbowl or world cup. There might be some people that suspect aliens but he could do some miracles, predict some events for tomorrow which would then be verified, answer some previously unanswered math/science questions. The press would be all over him like white on rice.

Yes. In short, "G exists" is verifiable only if G is observable. Which is not rocket science after all.

Indeed, but you missed the most important part, if he's not observable then claims about him are necessarily human fabrication. If they are not fabrication then he must be detectable.

 

[Herzblut]

God could easily demonstrate himself. Poof, god appears on the playfield during the superbowl or world cup. There might be some people that suspect aliens but he could do some miracles, predict some events for tomorrow which would then be verified, answer some previously unanswered math/science questions. The press would be all over him like white on rice.

Yeah, but you know, if I were God I wouldn't do that freak show. It's kinda .. undignified.

Indeed, but you missed the most important part, if he's not observable then claims about him are necessarily human fabrication. If they are not fabrication then he must be detectable.

Right. Gods are human fabrications, if you ask me.

Herzblut

 

[Faithkills]

Yeah, but you know, if I were God I wouldn't do that freak show. It's kinda .. undignified.

Well presumably immortal souls are on the line, it's nice to know what level of effort god will go to in order to save us

"Yeah I could do some miracles and save every soul, but it's just so uncooll. I'd be the laughing stock of the god community."

Right. Gods are human fabrications, if you ask me.

Agreed, but then I don't understand how you can know religion is based on lies but then don't think it's questionable.

Then wouldn't we be better off if we stopped training people to believe fiction is reality? Wouldn't the world be better off if all would be martyrs ceased believing tomorrow?

And whenever hard studies are done it seems the religious fare worse..

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/tb/6306

"In fact, doctors who reported no religious affiliation at all were the most likely to practice among underserved populations (35%). Practitioners who were self-described as highly spiritual, but not necessarily religious, also cared for more underserved patients, said Farr A. Curlin, M.D., of the University of Chicago, and colleagues."

 

[Mobyseven]

You do realise you're responding to Belz.

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

Once again proving that reading comprehension is not your strong point.

 

[BillyJoe]

Mobyseven,

You quoted Belz and then you replied:

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.

You were talking to Belz, merely mentioning to him an assertion that I had made.
So, who has the problem with reading comprehension, pray tell?
Come on, it's not so hard for you to admit to a mistake, is it?

<- mobyseven

(Nevermind, though, it was meant as a joke anyway )

 

[Mobyseven]

BillyJoe:

Do you pay attention when you read my posts (and who they are directed at) or do you drift in and out of consciousness?

Perhaps my wording could have been more precise - I thought the meaning was clear. Given your track record when it comes to reading comprehension however, I am more inclined to think that it is you who made the mistake here.

"It's not so hard for you to admit to a mistake, is it?" Ed, if you weren't a perfect example of why schools need to teach critical thinking in Australia, I'd be laughing out loud due to the irony...

 

[BillyJoe]

Lighten up Mobyseven.

You do realise you're responding to Belz. <- this means it's a joke!

And, if I hadn't been paying attention reading your post, I wouldn't have spotted that sentence as ripe for a joke.

 

[Mobyseven]

Lighten up Mobyseven.

And, if I hadn't been paying attention reading your post, I wouldn't have spotted that sentence as ripe for a joke.

Jokes are the providence of those who haven't been rude this whole thread.

In all honesty, in real life I imaging that we'd probably get along alright. But our attitude in this thread has been so rude to anyone who disagrees with you, right from the start, and your refusal (still) to accept one of the basic tenets of science and empiricism is frustrating beyond imagination.

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps. But we can, at least, say that it takes time for something to happen.

For something to happen, because "something" takes a certain amount of time, but an event need not logically take up any time at all.

Observing takes time, therefore a timeless event, if it isn't an oxymoron, could not be observed.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about observing something while IN a timeless continuum. Of course, this requires that we'd have to be able to observe ANOTHER universe from this one.

I could have sworn I already conceded this point.

Well, you didn't make it very clear.

I said I know it to be false that a feature of a singularity is chaos.
I spent a little time googling it (I also can spare only a little time), but could find no reference to chaos being a feature of a singularity.

I'll try to look it up today.

What theories do we have that explain something out of nothing and what evidence supports them?

Again, you're assuming that there was "nothing" at one point.

I just find it interesting that you have no problem with backwards causation in time and the interconnectedness of all quantum particles in the universe, but, at the same time are happy to totally dismiss any possibility that god may exist.

That's because I don't dismiss god because it's "weird", but because it's nonsensical.

No, I mean why is there something rather than nothing?

That's going to sound corny, but maybe "nothing" is impossible.

How did the possibility of something arise?
What caused the possibility of a quantum fluctuation, if that is the reason for something out of nothing?

Again, you're assuming that there was nothing at some point.

Except that it contains within it all that has come after it.

"Contain" is a misnomer, but ok.

And I'm not sure how simple an object of infinite mass, infinite gravity, infinite density, infinite spacetime curvature occupying zero volume can actually be.

I don't think it has those infinites. I think the tendency towards infinity is simply a mathematical result of going back in time towards the singularity. But I don't think the singularity itself has any infinites. Again, I'll try to dig up something later today.

 

[Mobyseven]

I meant to comment on this earlier, but BillyJoe, what do you mean by, "the interconnectedness of all quantum particles in the universe,"?

It seems that you are confusing the concept of quantum entanglement with the idea that every particle, everywhere, has an affect on every other particle in the universe.

Is this what you believe quantum theory says?

 

[Belz...]

I don't understand a word of this.
It's falsifiable (what? in theory?), it's unfalsifiable in practice?, if defined as unfalsifiable?
There must be something profound here that I am missing.
Blessed if I know what it is.

It's falsifiable because there is, in principle, a way to falsify it.

Just because you can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Take this example:

Claim: Dogs have three legs only

This claim is falsifiable by finding a single four-legged dog.

Just because all the dogs your find are somehow missing a leg, and you can't find a single four-legged dog, doesn't mean the claim is unfalsifiable. It's just not being falsified.

God creates the laws of physics and the initial conditions and disapppears.
Science discovers the laws and initial conditions but is unable to explain the origin of these laws and initial conditions.
God is undetectable and not irrelevant.

That's contradictory.

If God creates the laws of physics, then there will be NO EXPLANATION for their existence. That's leaving a trace. But if there IS an explanation for their existence, then god becomes unnecessary.