Maybe we CAN disprove God...

[EGarrett]

I have to say I was energized by Rational Response's total demolition of the "what caused the universe" question in their debate against Kirk and Bananaman. Their answer may not have been scientifically perfect, but it absolutely destroyed that theist argument.

So, it has me reexamining some other aspects of the theist argument that I thought didn't have pat replies. Most notably, the argument from ignorance, pointing out that we can't disprove God.

Maybe we can.

The first step is to apply SOME characteristic to God. This must be done, because if there is no definition to the term, then we're just speaking nonsense. Once that has been done, you can point out that science and the observed laws of the universe show that that isn't possible.

For example...let's say that God created the universe. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, according to what we've observed, God is impossible.

Perhaps then, we say that God is a being with ultimate control of the universe, or the consciousness of the universe itself. This may be a bit more difficult, but we've observed the universe to consist of gas and elements, in a configuration that leads to no active consciousness or control. It can be demonstrated that a whiff of hydrogen or a stone have no thought patterns and no will of their own. Therefore, according to what we've observed, there is no possible known way that this can occur. This would make God impossible.

How would the theist respond to this? Would they just keep trying to change what they claim about God? Or would they say that perhaps we just don't know how God controls the universe yet? You could still then reply that, from the consistent aspects of the universe we've observed, the properties you assign to God make him impossible, and we've never observed that these laws can be violated, so you have no basis for saying it's not a valid disproving.

Help me out, I'm curious as to how the theist will respond.

 

[LawnOven]

For example...let's say that God created the universe. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, according to what we've observed, God is impossible.

That's because he set up the laws of thermodynamics after he was done with the universe. and may suspend reality at any time in order to break those rules again.

The universe was created 5 minutes ago you just think it's older because god is tricky like that.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Perhaps then, we say that God is a being with ultimate control of the universe, or the consciousness of the universe itself. This may be a bit more difficult, but we've observed the universe to consist of gas and elements, in a configuration that leads to no active consciousness or control. It can be demonstrated that a whiff of hydrogen or a stone have no thought patterns and no will of their own. Therefore, according to what we've observed, there is no possible known way that this can occur. This would make God impossible.

This may be a worthy effort, but I don't think using our own argument from ignorance will help.

 

[EGarrett]

This may be a worthy effort, but I don't think using our own argument from ignorance will help.

I agree that the second aspect of God is more difficult to disprove than the first, but showing something to be impossible is a bit different from an argument from ignorance. One is saying "I don't know how it can happen," the other is saying "there is no way it can happen, given everything we've observed about the universe."

 

[Darth Rotor]

For example...let's say that God created the universe. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, according to what we've observed, God is impossible.

Don't take that golf swing out of town, EG, you forgot a small detail.

"Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it merely changes form."

So, all God has to do to create the Universe is to change the form of whatever was or is (depends on how you address T= 0 and any T < 0 state) into what the universe is, in its varietal detail, or if you'd rather, as a system.

Not a job for a piker, but a task with a coherent path nonetheless.

Try again.

DR

 

[lordcow]

I have to say I was energized by Rational Response's total demolition of the "what caused the universe" question in their debate against Kirk and Bananaman. Their answer may not have been scientifically perfect, but it absolutely destroyed that theist argument.

which was 'what caused god'? (i haven't been able to see the debate yet)

So, it has me reexamining some other aspects of the theist argument that I thought didn't have pat replies. Most notably, the argument from ignorance, pointing out that we can't disprove God.

Maybe we can.

xcept the burden of proof isn't 'ours'.

The first step is to apply SOME characteristic to God. This must be done, because if there is no definition to the term, then we're just speaking nonsense. Once that has been done, you can point out that science and the observed laws of the universe show that that isn't possible. For example...let's say that God created the universe. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, according to what we've observed, God is impossible.

this is a law which we've ascribed to the universe, and has so far held true. besides, if god created the universe, he is not part of the universe and hence not bound by its rules.

Perhaps then, we say that God is a being with ultimate control of the universe, or the consciousness of the universe itself. This may be a bit more difficult, but we've observed the universe to consist of gas and elements, in a configuration that leads to no active consciousness or control.

what observations are you talking about?

It can be demonstrated that a whiff of hydrogen or a stone have no thought patterns and no will of their own.

how do you do that? and more importantly, how do you demonstrate the more complicated universe made up of all these particles has no thought?

Therefore, according to what we've observed, there is no possible known way that this can occur. This would make God impossible.

your first assertion is as yet unfounded. secondly, your deduction that god is therefore impossible because of our lack of a complete understanding of how consciousness occurs is invalid and is the same tactic creationists use (we don't understand this phenomenon, therefore god did it).

 

[Beleth]

IFor example...let's say that God created the universe. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, according to what we've observed, God is impossible.

Except that if God really did create the universe, then the winner of a God-vs-themo contest would of course be God, not thermo, no matter what our observations have told us over the last few millenia.

 

[lordcow]

I agree that the second aspect of God is more difficult to disprove than the first, but showing something to be impossible is a bit different from an argument from ignorance. One is saying "I don't know how it can happen," the other is saying "there is no way it can happen, given everything we've observed about the universe."

you initially said "Therefore, according to what we've observed, there is no possible known way that this can occur", which is slightly different. if you now adhere to the latter, how do you show 'there is no way it can happen'?

 

[lordcow]

"Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it merely changes form."

So, all God has to do to create the Universe is to change the form of whatever was or is (depends on how you address T= 0 and any T < 0 state) into what the universe is, in its varietal detail, or if you'd rather, as a system.

god is in this case evoked to explain physical existence. if all he can do is modify then the already lacking explanation doesn't serve anything.

 

[mylfmyhnr]

Perhaps then, we say that God is a being with ultimate control of the universe, or the consciousness of the universe itself. This may be a bit more difficult, but we've observed the universe to consist of gas and elements, in a configuration that leads to no active consciousness or control. It can be demonstrated that a whiff of hydrogen or a stone have no thought patterns and no will of their own. Therefore, according to what we've observed, there is no possible known way that this can occur. This would make God impossible.

My cells have no thought of their own, yet they do their job. I don't conciously control my breathing (mostly), my blood flow, cellular respiration, etc... And yet it's all a bigger part of a being with a conciousness. I'm not agreeing to there being a God, I just don't see that because a rock doesn't think that it can't be part of the larger whole.

And besides, Douglas Adams did a thought experiment on this already... Or are you not familiar with the Masters of Krikkit?

 

[EGarrett]

Don't take that golf swing out of town, EG, you forgot a small detail.

"Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it merely changes form."

So, all God has to do to create the Universe is to change the form of whatever was or is (depends on how you address T= 0 and any T < 0 state) into what the universe is, in its varietal detail, or if you'd rather, as a system.

Not a job for a piker, but a task with a coherent path nonetheless.

Try again.

DR

What you described is not an act of creation, so it's changing the property we just assigned to God. As I said originally, if you change definitions of key terms at will, you have nonsense...not actual discussion.

And even so, that question still has to settle where the "stuff" that God used to make the universe came from.

 

[EGarrett]

which was 'what caused god'? (i haven't been able to see the debate yet)

That wasn't the one they used. In a nutshell, they said that perhaps the universe has always existed, and "if God can be infinite, why can't the universe be infinite?"

It isn't necessarily right from a scientific standpoint, but it devastates the creationist attempt at infinite regress.

xcept the burden of proof isn't 'ours'.

You're absolutely right, I just find it a little irritating to have to explain that constanly. In this thread, I'm just reexamining if we actually do have a method of doing so, even if we don't have to.

this is a law which we've ascribed to the universe, and has so far held true. besides, if god created the universe, he is not part of the universe and hence not bound by its rules.

But we have no reason to believe that. Everything we have ever observed in regards to how things operate indicates that it is impossible. Arguing against it in that way is not establishing that there is no proof, but to throw out the entire idea of proof and move into nonsense.

what observations are you talking about?

Every observation we've made of the universe with our eyes, telescopes, probes, manned space flight etc. They've all indicated that the universe does not have a structure that can not in any way, to the full extent of our knowledge, support any method of consciousness or willed action.

how do you do that? and more importantly, how do you demonstrate the more complicated universe made up of all these particles has no thought?

The same way you test for any type of thought process or reaction in any animal, human, bacteria etc.

your first assertion is as yet unfounded.

I respectfully disagree. It's based on the laws of thermodynamics that anyone can test and observe.

secondly, your deduction that god is therefore impossible because of our lack of a complete understanding of how consciousness occurs is invalid and is the same tactic creationists use (we don't understand this phenomenon, therefore god did it).

Except that I'm not making any leap to magic. I'm basing it on every observation we've made of what is possible.

 

[dglas]

It's a teflon concept. It is designed to have no testable porperties assigned to it. There is no need to disprove it; it is meaningless.

Trying to prove or disprove it plays into the hands of the theists. Don't play their game. You just get dirty and the theist enjoys it, too.

Recognize the concept for what it is, point and laugh.

 

[EGarrett]

Except that if God really did create the universe, then the winner of a God-vs-themo contest would of course be God, not thermo, no matter what our observations have told us over the last few millenia.

But we've observed thermodynamics, we haven't observed God. Therefore, in the realm of rationality, (which is where proof lies) thermodynamics wins.

 

[EGarrett]

you initially said "Therefore, according to what we've observed, there is no possible known way that this can occur", which is slightly different. if you now adhere to the latter, how do you show 'there is no way it can happen'?

Let's not leave out the last part. There is no way it can happen, given everything we've observed about the universe. We show that by by testing the laws of thermodynamics, or citing every other experiment where the laws have been established.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

As I said originally, if you change definitions of key terms at will, you have nonsense...not actual discussion.

Perhaps a theist would reply something like this: What makes you thing it’s possible to assign properties to God in the first place? Sure, without those, the discussion might be considered nonsense, but hey, why would a god care whether we thing it’s nonsense or not? The existence of God is not subjugated to how any discussion about God is perceived.

I guess it ultimately boils down to a linguistic barrier; words simply might not be the way to evaluate such an issue?

 

[strathmeyer]

Ted Haggart clearly explained in his discussion with Richard Dawkins that scientist will be discovering proof of a god in the near future. All of this where did the universe come from, how did life start, scientists don't really know right now. But we're living in an exciting time, because at some point in the very near future, scientists will set everybody straight. All we have to do is wait.

 

[lordcow]

this is a law which we've ascribed to the universe, and has so far held true. besides, if god created the universe, he is not part of the universe and hence not bound by its rules.

But we have no reason to believe that. Everything we have ever observed in regards to how things operate indicates that it is impossible. Arguing against it in that way is not establishing that there is no proof, but to throw out the entire idea of proof and move into nonsense.

to what in my post are you referring to?

what observations are you talking about?

Every observation we've made of the universe with our eyes, telescopes, probes, manned space flight etc. They've all indicated that the universe does not have a structure that can not in any way, to the full extent of our knowledge, support any method of consciousness or willed action.

how do you know that? how can you point to an object with such surety and say 'that isn't conscious'? what are the indicators of consciousness you are using? or to put it in a different light, by what basis do you point to another human being and say 'he's conscious'?

how do you do that? and more importantly, how do you demonstrate the more complicated universe made up of all these particles has no thought?

The same way you test for any type of thought process or reaction in any animal, human, bacteria etc.

i'd like to know what this test of yours is, and why it is the exclusive indicator of consciousness.

your first assertion is as yet unfounded.

I respectfully disagree. It's based on the laws of thermodynamics that anyone can test and observe.

your assertion was that consciousness is impossible in the greater universe. i say it is as yet unfounded as you have not answered the above questions. and what does this have to do with thermodynamics?

secondly, your deduction that god is therefore impossible because of our lack of a complete understanding of how consciousness occurs is invalid and is the same tactic creationists use (we don't understand this phenomenon, therefore god did it).

Except that I'm not making any leap to magic. I'm basing it on every observation we've made of what is possible.

i didn't mean a leap to magic, i meant the more general argument from ignorance tactic. you're saying there's no way we know of that some arbitrary object or the entire universe could be conscious, therefore they can't be conscious. that is invalid.

 

[lordcow]

IFor example...let's say that God created the universe. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, according to what we've observed, God is impossible.

Except that if God really did create the universe, then the winner of a God-vs-themo contest would of course be God, not thermo, no matter what our observations have told us over the last few millenia.

But we've observed thermodynamics, we haven't observed God. Therefore, in the realm of rationality, (which is where proof lies) thermodynamics wins.

you provided the assumption that god created the universe yourself. now you have to work with that assumption until you find a contradiction. in this paradigm when the universe was created there was necessarily no universe, and hence no law of thermo to adhere to. its like a cosmologist firing up a computer simulation of the early universe that consists of particles and the time dependent laws they must obey and watching it evolve. this is a completely consistent scenarion, it happens all the time. god, in this case the cosmologist, brought into being matter, from which point on followed the laws he decreed.

besides this. as beleth points out, god would win the god-thermo contest providing he created the universe, as you have initially assumed. he made the law he can break it. in the simulation analogy the cosmologist, being the skilled hacker cosmologists are, could dive into his running program at some point and insert a few extra particle objects without segfaulting. you're right this has never been scientifically observed in our universe, but that doesn't logically imply that it never has nor never will, for the same reason that you can't prove a unicorn doesn't exist.

 

[Vintij]

Thermodynamics are laws governed by the universe, had GOD created the universe, he would not be governed by these laws, nor the laws of time and space.

Time would have broken down as well as space, meaning that in the instant that god created the "singularity" from the instant that matter came into play AFTER the splitting of the 4 forces (gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear force) to now, god has not experienced time because time would have broken down, therefore theoretically it could have been an instant in gods existance that took us 13 billion years to experience.

If god did create this universe, he certainly does not live by the same laws that govern it. That is why we can not prove he does or does not exist, because not only does time break down outside of the physical universe, the laws of all science break down as well.