Maybe we CAN disprove God...

[Taffer]

But it doesn't really. QM just gives us probabilities of finding a particle at one place or another. It doesn't tell us we should ever observe a particle in one place and at the same time somehow not observe a particle in that place.

Really? I suggest you research the "slit experiment" (possibly done by Young, IIRC).

Also, I'd be interested to hear how you think the basic precepts of logic arose.

 

[tsg]

Reasoning has produced laws of nature like the first law of thermodynamics, and also standards of discussion like using terms that have meaning. Within those standards, God (as creator of the universe) or God (as a meaningless term) are either impossible or nonsensical and thus self-refuting.

Who is requiring that god be confined within those standards?

Where do you propose this intelligence exists? Somewhere where we conveniently cannot detect any part of it,

Yes.

and where any nonsensical concept (i.e. 1 + 1 equaling 3) can also be equally likely to exist?

No.

But this being is still bound by a consistent set of properties. The God that exists in an alternate plane where no rules apply is not.

I have said, repeatedly, that god is only not bound by our rules, not no rules at all.

Just to interrupt here, he would not be intelligent by our normal conception in that circumstance. The two-dimensional version of the brain would have to function very differently from the three-dimensional one.

I don't disagree. That doesn't mean it can't happen.

If there were a moment of interaction with our plane that in anyway showed a violation of natural law, then you might have something here. But there has never been to any of our knowledge...which is why the natural laws exist...and it is these laws that in turn form the context for reasoning by which God (as extra-dimensional creator) is impossible.

"never been to any of our knowlege" is not the same as "impossible".

The laws are mutually exclusive with him. You must throw out the laws and reasoning in order to posit this god, which makes it impossible to the full extent of the word.

No, it doesn't. You are assuming, despite my explicit statements to the contrary, that god must be constrained by the laws of this universe.

The occupants of this plane would have an entirely different frame of reasoning. By nature of your example, they would have no natural law which precludes those things from happening. Thus that God would not be impossible.

They would reason that those things are impossible in the very same way we do.

The equivalent in our plane would be if energy continually randomly showed up and then disappeared. We would have no first law of thermodynamics and thus this God would be quite possible.

You are assuming it would happen often enough to be recognized by science.

To say there are no other possible types that we know of does imply that there are no other types, to the full extent of our knowledge. But I wouldn't claim that that means there are no other types possible. The important point is, when you refer to consciousness, you're referring to consciousness as we've observed it. But then you change the properties of it (no brain, no electrical patterns, no observable effects), which is where the problem shows up.

I didn't say no brain, no electrical patterns. I said they exist where we can't perceive them.

What you're assigning to God is not actually consciousness,

No, I'm not.

The problem is that you're making drastic changes to the concept of intelligence and consciousness.

No, I'm not.

This is not brain based,

I didn't say that.

it is not based on electrical activity.

Or that.

You are not claiming any material or observable characteristics at all. Let alone emotion, or reasoning, or a limited memory, or use a body as consciousness as we understand it does.

That we don't understand it doesn't mean it can't exist.

If the only situation where this God can exist is one where 1 + 1 = 3 can also be said to exist, then they are equal in likelihood and rationality. I feel that the extra-dimensional idea does not fit this for reasons given above.

Only because you insist on applying our current understanding as the only possible means of existence.

 

[chriswl]

Really? I suggest you research the "slit experiment" (possibly done by Young, IIRC).

I said: "QM just gives us probabilities of finding a particle at one place or another. It doesn't tell us we should ever observe a particle in one place and at the same time somehow not observe a particle in that place."

This is correct. The amplitude of the wave function is interpreted as the probability of finding a particle at a particular point in space and time. At any point on the screen we always either observe a photon or not a photon. You're surely not saying that QM violates logic?

If QM broke the laws of logic that would just be another way of saying it was wrong. For example, I could say that given the fact of the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames, Newton's laws break the laws of logic because they allow us to travel faster than light and we can show that logical paradoxes can then ensue. This is one reason why we know that Newton's laws cannot be correct.

Also, I'd be interested to hear how you think the basic precepts of logic arose.

That's an interesting question, but they definitely pre-date empirical science.

 

[Taffer]

I said: "QM just gives us probabilities of finding a particle at one place or another. It doesn't tell us we should ever observe a particle in one place and at the same time somehow not observe a particle in that place."

This is correct. The amplitude of the wave function is interpreted as the probability of finding a particle at a particular point in space and time. At any point on the screen we always either observe a photon or not a photon. You're surely not saying that QM violates logic?

If QM broke the laws of logic that would just be another way of saying it was wrong. For example, I could say that given the fact of the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames, Newton's laws break the laws of logic because they allow us to travel faster than light and we can show that logical paradoxes can then ensue. This is one reason why we know that Newton's laws cannot be correct.

At the risk of sounding snotty: "Whatever". My interest in this discussion is very limited, and I'm not particularly interested in getting into an argument with you over what you may or may not have said or implied.

That's an interesting question, but they definitely pre-date empirical science.

But not empirical observation.

 

[chriswl]

No, I wouldn't agree. Sorry, but I do not speak for all believers. Some definitions I have heard (I would have to dig through my memory to reproduce them verbatim) are not supernatural. Often because they define God as not being supernatural.

And "god" is just a word. My foot can qualify as a god if we define it to be so.

We seem to have settled most of our disagreements/misunderstandings. But I do want to comment on this because its bang on topic and this whole thread basically hinges around it.

If you take the attitude that the word God can mean anything that anyone anywhere has ever or will ever (or could ever) define it as... well all debate about it is immediately rendered impossible. God can mean anything, so therefore God means nothing. Whatever you say about it someone else will come along and say that this isn't true for "their" God.

But to treat the word God in this way would be to trivialise it. We don't treat any other word in this way. If someone said their (perfectly normal looking) foot was a unicorn you'd tell them not to be so stupid. You wouldn't start seriously considering the possibility that the world is actually full of unicorns. Unicorn does not mean foot just because some deranged person says it does and the same goes for God.

No definition is perfect and we can never have complete agreement. But we can tell the difference between sensible definitions that are broadly correct and those that are crazy. There is at least a "family resemblance" between most common notions of God. If we didn't have the ability to come up with these kinds of rough definitions than we would never be able to communicate at all.

If we talk about God at all we already have an implicit definition (however loose) that can be seen from the way we talk about it. And if we learnt how to use this word in a society with other people (some believers, some not) and we are able to talk meaningfully with them at all, then we have the basis for a definition that is not just our own personal, arbitrary invention but can have some claim to be the definition in use in our society. Though of course it may be fairly vague and never completely uncontroversial.

We can't talk about God and claim not to have any idea of what God means, because what is it we are then talking about? Why call it God? All we would be doing is demonstrating our desire to type the letters g-o-d, rather than some other combination, for no reason.

 

[chriswl]

At the risk of sounding snotty: "Whatever". My interest in this discussion is very limited, and I'm not particularly interested in getting into an argument with you over what you may or may not have said or implied.

But you are interested enough to keep trying to "correct" me. I suggest you stop doing this unless you actually are interested in what I've actually said....

 

[Vintij]

This thread will end on this page. All arguments were made, points taken. No official agreement. So I guess we cut our losses and go our own intellectual ways.

Me I choose to be an apathetic agnotic thiest. Not that I have physical proof or that I have felt god, but I have interviewed several people about the exact prayer that they recited, and the next day receiving some sort of outlandish miracle that was either a result of chance or a result of these prayers. So personally, I can not prove nor disprove because I have done my research unlike most of you......and though it came up inconclusive, it did not shut the door on the god theory, because chance is something that is inconsistent, when I find a consistent result of specific things happening to people who pray, then I will put the numbers together and have a better idea of why only certain people receive miracles after tragic events, and others dont. I will then compare the severity of the tragedy, and the level or religion if there is one.

Perhaps its not a theory of which religion gets the most miracles, because all of the people I spoke with, were not religious at all.....they just happen to be so distraught, that they prayed to a random god not bounded by any religion. And the next day, they saw results from the most random places.

I am torn between my research of random events by chance, and my research of random events by non religous prayer.

So my conclusion is that you cant find god with religion, you cant find god with observation, you cant even find god with prayer. It is god who finds you or at the most random moment in your life, or not at all. You can not prove he was there, or that he even exists because mathmatics do allow inprobable things to occur. Therefore, the harder you look for god (science, religion,repetitive prayers) the less likely you are of finding anything. Sort of like trying to win the lottery, the more people play.....the less likely you are of winning because they are all expecting to win just like you, when in reality it is completely random.

God could be organized and random, in an organized and random universe.

 

[BillyJoe]

I don't know about addition but apparently, in the mathematical equations of quantum physics, a*b does not equal b*a.

I don't think that violates a fundamental law of logic. Multiplication is not always commutative (e.g. matrices) and there are solid logical reasons for this.

Yes, it has to do with matrices and is logical in it's framework. But I wasn't trying to say it is illogical, only that what has, at one time, been illogical in one framework can, at a later time, be shown to be logical in a different framework. (Someone asked if there was an example for 1+1=3)

I said: "QM just gives us probabilities of finding a particle at one place or another. It doesn't tell us we should ever observe a particle in one place and at the same time somehow not observe a particle in that place."

This is correct. The amplitude of the wave function is interpreted as the probability of finding a particle at a particular point in space and time. At any point on the screen we always either observe a photon or not a photon.

Yes, that is right.
(Sorry, Taffer, you need to reread your quantum theory.)

You're surely not saying that QM violates logic?...If QM broke the laws of logic that would just be another way of saying it was wrong.

Do you mean that you actually have a logical, rational interpretation of quantum physics? I don't think you have.

My original point about the "advanced alien" was that there are possibly things we do not understand that could nevertheless turn out to be true. You cannot disprove the possibility of the existence of an advanced alien who created the world and has attained eternal life which he wishes to share with us humans. We have no idea how that would be possible, but we cannot disprove it as a possibility. And here we have an example of quantum physics where we know it is true but we have no logical interpretation for it. It makes no sense.

Under these circumstances, are we perhaps a little premature in saying we can disprove god (still thinking about this myself without a cionclusion so far)

 

[EGarrett]

Logic and reasoning are not forms of evidence. To say they are just makes no sense.

Logic and reason are what we use to interpret and process the evidence, they are not themselves evidence.

Logic can itself be evidence. The definition shows that evidence is considered to be anything that proves or supports something. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "logical proof" before?

It might clear things up if I point out that very often, people can disagree about what certain information suggests. In that case, you present logic and reason to support your point of view, not the information itself. And since the logical path ITSELF is what supports the point of view, then the logic is part of the evidence.

Do you think its possible that we might one day discover that the rules of logic that we use are wrong? Do you think 1 + 1 might turn out not to be equal to 2? Are you open to this possibility in the same way you are open to new evidence?

It depends what you mean by "wrong." If you mean that we will discover that there IS NO logic and reason at all, and no consistent rules at all to the universe...then I'm as open to that as I am open to any other completely irrational idea. Along the lines of .00000000001% open.

If you mean we might discover a better, more rational and uniformly consistent way of interpreting things...it could happen. It would throw out hundreds of thousands of years of learning (through evolution programming us to use certain ways of learning, and we ourselves establishing ways), but it could happen.

Please note though, that by asking me if one day all our logic and reason will fall apart...you are once again supporting God in the same way that you'd support 1 + 1 = 3 and green being taller than yesterday.

 

[EGarrett]

I meant that quantum physics makes no sense. There is no logical, rational way of interpreting quantum physics.

Quantum physics still has anchored concepts and consistent behaviors. It's just that those consistent behaviors don't match up with the behaviors we've observed in the normal-sized world, and we're still theorizing about how they might.

Quantum physics is different, but it is not nonsense.

 

[EGarrett]

Who is requiring that god be confined within those standards?

Well, the answer is in the part you quoted. If "God" is a nonsense idea, then it does not work and is self-refuting, like any other nonsense concept. (you disprove something by showing that it doesn't work, and nonsense, by nature of being nonsense, already does not work)

And if the only way to show that "God" is undisprovable is to show that NOTHING is undisprovable, then "God" is equal to nothing. He is just as irrational (and thus just as disproven, to the full extent that anything can be disproven) as 1 + 1 = 3 and green being taller than yesterday.

Yes.

No.

Then we need more info about your claim. You say God is somewhere that he cannot be observed in any way, but yet not somewhere where the rules of reason do not apply.

If, wherever he is, the rules of reason still apply...then this God did not create the universe (1st law of thermodynam). And if you then back off on that claim, then you have reduced God to being an "I don't know who" doing "I don't know what" in "I don't know where." (Piggy)...which is a nonsense claim (or just no claim at all) and thus does not need to be refuted.

"never been to any of our knowlege" is not the same as "impossible".

Yes, but violating all logic and reason IS the same as impossible.

The reason I said "never been to any of our knowledge" was to show the difference between this God claim and your 3D God to a 2D world. In your example, the 3D God reaches down and moves items, without them appearing to cross any distance in the 2D world. That type of thing would break down all the 2D world's rules, so they would have a context whereby that God wasn't impossible.

You are assuming it would happen often enough to be recognized by science.

To the full extent of all of our knowledge and observations that we have made, which have bared out correctly in every circumstance, and to the full extent of all of the PREDICTIONS that that knowledge and observation leads to...it is impossible. That is what anyone means whenever they use the word impossible. It is the full meaning of the word.

That we don't understand it doesn't mean it can't exist.

But that DOES mean that it is not consciousness. You're changing the concept. This God is not conscious, it is "I don't know what." You are not making any claim.

This God is something you don't know, in a place you won't say, doing something we can't detect. We don't have to disprove that, because there's nothing to disprove.

 

[Piggy]

Should not be taken seriously, but is taken seriously.
- but not disproven.
Perhaps, like Atheist, I was looking for a knock-out blow.

It is a knock-out blow. But God ends not with a bang, but a whimper.

When the only remaining arguments for a hypothesis don't deserve serious consideration -- when they are all empty, nonsensical, meaningless, or contrary to fact... and in fact must be so -- and when the world-view which allows the hypothesis has been debunked and replaced with an emprically valid worldview, then the claim has no possible truth value.

When you establish that the claim "God is real" cannot have truth value, you're done. There is no further "disproving" that needs to be undertaken.

 

[EGarrett]

I have interviewed several people about the exact prayer that they recited, and the next day receiving some sort of outlandish miracle that was either a result of chance or a result of these prayers. So personally, I can not prove nor disprove because I have done my research unlike most of you......and though it came up inconclusive, it did not shut the door on the god theory, because chance is something that is inconsistent,

How is this "God" distinguishable from a simple lucky turn of events?

And if you interview someone who prayed hard for something they REALLY REALLY needed, and didn't get it...then will you count that as evidence against this God existing? If not, then you are not honestly doing research.

 

[Piggy]

*sigh*

If you think that all religious people always define God in such a way which as this, then you have not met nearly enough religous people.

I think the point is that, first, we have to be dealing with someone's definition of God (ETA: because no definition = no claim or nonsense claim). And second, those choices inevitably fall into 2 categories (with their hybrids): abstract and concrete.

The abstract definitions are inherently empty or meaningless. The concrete ones which are not contrary to fact, or empty, are indistinguishable from materialistic explanations of what we observe.

So it doesn't matter how many kinds of religious people you talk to -- there's no meaningful definition of God that they can provide which could possibly correspond to anything that deserves to be called "real".

 

[tsg]

Well, the answer is in the part you quoted. If "God" is a nonsense idea, then it does not work and is self-refuting, like any other nonsense concept. (you disprove something by showing that it doesn't work, and nonsense, by nature of being nonsense, already does not work)

And if the only way to show that "God" is undisprovable is to show that NOTHING is undisprovable, then "God" is equal to nothing. He is just as irrational (and thus just as disproven, to the full extent that anything can be disproven) as 1 + 1 = 3 and green being taller than yesterday.

I don't disagree with any of this. I just fail to see how it applies to my definition of god.

Then we need more info about your claim. You say God is somewhere that he cannot be observed in any way, but yet not somewhere where the rules of reason do not apply.

If, wherever he is, the rules of reason still apply...then this God did not create the universe (1st law of thermodynam).

The first law of thermodynamics is a law of this universe which I explicitly laid out in my definition as not applying to this god. There are laws that god is bound by. They aren't the same ones our universe is bound by. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Yes, but violating all logic and reason IS the same as impossible.

But I haven't.

The reason I said "never been to any of our knowledge" was to show the difference between this God claim and your 3D God to a 2D world. In your example, the 3D God reaches down and moves items, without them appearing to cross any distance in the 2D world. That type of thing would break down all the 2D world's rules, so they would have a context whereby that God wasn't impossible.

Nor, by extension, would they be in this world if the object was moved through a dimension that we are unable to perceive. It would seem impossible based on what we know of the universe, however.

To the full extent of all of our knowledge and observations that we have made, which have bared out correctly in every circumstance, and to the full extent of all of the PREDICTIONS that that knowledge and observation leads to...it is impossible. That is what anyone means whenever they use the word impossible. It is the full meaning of the word.

It is impossible based on what we know. That's not the same as impossible. You're playing semantic games to call that which we do not understand impossible as if it means something in the same way believers redefine god as if it means something.

But that DOES mean that it is not consciousness.

No, it doesn't. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

You're changing the concept.

No, I'm not.

This God is something you don't know,

I have said what he does.

in a place you won't say,

I have said where he does it.

doing something we can't detect.

That part is true.

We don't have to disprove that,

You do if you want to claim this god is disprovable.

 

[Taffer]

But you are interested enough to keep trying to "correct" me. I suggest you stop doing this unless you actually are interested in what I've actually said....

Touche. I have a bad habit of replying to people who reply to me, even if it'll draw me into an argument I don't really care about.

 

[Taffer]

Yes, that is right.
(Sorry, Taffer, you need to reread your quantum theory.)

Yeah, fair enough. Ok, I concede the point. I think I originally misread his post, anyway (I was thinking he was saying a particle cannot be in two places at the same time).

 

[Taffer]

I think the point is that, first, we have to be dealing with someone's definition of God (ETA: because no definition = no claim or nonsense claim). And second, those choices inevitably fall into 2 categories (with their hybrids): abstract and concrete.

The abstract definitions are inherently empty or meaningless. The concrete ones which are not contrary to fact, or empty, are indistinguishable from materialistic explanations of what we observe.

So it doesn't matter how many kinds of religious people you talk to -- there's no meaningful definition of God that they can provide which could possibly correspond to anything that deserves to be called "real".

Exactly so. As I said, if the definition of God is unfalsifiable, it is rendered meaningless (ok, ok, it renders not the term meaningless, but any knowledge based on it). In every case where it is falsifiable, i.e. a concrete definition, it has either been falsified or is indistinguishable from a materialistic phenomenon.

What my point really was was as Chris posted earlier. Out word games on definitions does not rule out the possibility of God, only that we cannot define him.

*shrug*

 

[Taffer]

We seem to have settled most of our disagreements/misunderstandings. But I do want to comment on this because its bang on topic and this whole thread basically hinges around it.

If you take the attitude that the word God can mean anything that anyone anywhere has ever or will ever (or could ever) define it as... well all debate about it is immediately rendered impossible. God can mean anything, so therefore God means nothing. Whatever you say about it someone else will come along and say that this isn't true for "their" God.

Exactly so.

But to treat the word God in this way would be to trivialise it. We don't treat any other word in this way. If someone said their (perfectly normal looking) foot was a unicorn you'd tell them not to be so stupid. You wouldn't start seriously considering the possibility that the world is actually full of unicorns. Unicorn does not mean foot just because some deranged person says it does and the same goes for God.

I disagree. Words can mean anything to anyone. Just because not everyone agrees with the definition does not render it meaningless. The meanings of words are not objective.

No definition is perfect and we can never have complete agreement. But we can tell the difference between sensible definitions that are broadly correct and those that are crazy. There is at least a "family resemblance" between most common notions of God. If we didn't have the ability to come up with these kinds of rough definitions than we would never be able to communicate at all.

If we talk about God at all we already have an implicit definition (however loose) that can be seen from the way we talk about it. And if we learnt how to use this word in a society with other people (some believers, some not) and we are able to talk meaningfully with them at all, then we have the basis for a definition that is not just our own personal, arbitrary invention but can have some claim to be the definition in use in our society. Though of course it may be fairly vague and never completely uncontroversial.

Again, I disagree. If one gives their definitions, they can talk meaningfully about anything using any words. It might not be sensible to do so, and may take overly large periods of time, but they could, eventually, still talk meaningfully.

We can't talk about God and claim not to have any idea of what God means, because what is it we are then talking about? Why call it God? All we would be doing is demonstrating our desire to type the letters g-o-d, rather than some other combination, for no reason.

Heh, very true. But what about the definition "God is the force which created the universe, and did so intentionally". How could you ever disprove that?

Or what about "God created the universe as if he did not". Unfalsifiable.

 

[EGarrett]

I don't disagree with any of this. I just fail to see how it applies to my definition of god.

If you make no claim, or shift aspects at your convenience, then your definition of god is nonsense.

The first law of thermodynamics is a law of this universe which I explicitly laid out in my definition as not applying to this god. There are laws that god is bound by. They aren't the same ones our universe is bound by. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

This God lives in the world where our rationality doesn't apply...and in fact, you have applied no rationality.

His roommates, who also live comfortably in this place, include 1 + 1 = 3 and green being taller than yesterday. Nonsense concepts. And if this is the only way to show that God can exist, then God is equally valid as any nonsense concept you want to make up, and is thus disproven to the full extent of the word.

Let me note also that this place, since you've given it no actual properties...(literally none, not even rationality or consistency) is also an "I don't know where."

Nor, by extension, would they be in this world if the object was moved through a dimension that we are unable to perceive. It would seem impossible based on what we know of the universe, however.

If that were to happen, our laws of motion, cause and effect and so on would break down and this God would suddenly become quite possible.

But as is, it doesn't happen, and you're not claiming that God does that. You're claiming God does either nothing at all or things we can't detect in any way...which is the same as claiming he's doing "I don't know what."

It is impossible based on what we know. That's not the same as impossible. You're playing semantic games to call that which we do not understand impossible as if it means something in the same way believers redefine god as if it means something.

There's a significant difference between saying "I don't know how X works" and "X does not, has not, and cannot work, given everything we've ever observed or reasoned."

I believe I am saying the latter. But if impossible does not mean that (the "does not, has not, and cannot" bit), please give me the better definition of impossible that I am missing.

There's also a difference between saying "We don't know how X works" and "We CANNOT know if X works because you haven't put forth an X."

No, it doesn't. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

I'm not trying to contradict you without points. You can't say God is conscious then change what consciousness is so that it can fit the undisprovability of God. You can't say that God thinks "but not like a person or animal thinks"...or that he has intelligence "but not like our intelligence." In that case, what you're describing is not consciousness, thinking, or intelligence at all. It's equivocation/definition-shifting/nonsense.

Unless what you're saying is that God has a plain brain and body like us, but is somewhere far away? I'm not sure how that's any different from simply claiming God is your Orange Soda Can on your desk. I've acknowledged that that sort of "God" exists and is provable...but isn't "God" in any known sense.

I have said what he does.

I appear to have missed it, so please reiterate.

So far, all that I've gathered is that this God is somewhere with no properties, doing things you don't know and can't detect, and has no characteristics that you can describe. Which make him a non-concept.

You do if you want to claim this god is disprovable.

If that God is nonsense, it is disproven just by pointing out that it is nonsense.