Maybe we CAN disprove God...

[chriswl]

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.

To be honest that's also what got me into this not very interesting argument with you and EGarrett about the precise definition of "science"....

There's nothing duller than arguing about definitions.

 

[Taffer]

There's nothing duller than arguing about definitions.

Depends how you define "argument".

 

[David Swidler]

Depends how you define "argument".

No, it doesn't.

 

[Piggy]

Out word games on definitions does not rule out the possibility of God, only that we cannot define him.

*shrug*

Sorry, but this point is not shrugworthy.

If there is no definition to be had, all claims are talk about nothing or nonsense.

And if all claims regarding God must be empty or meaningless, this does in fact rule out the possibility of God.

Which means, "God is real" cannot be true.

And that's not a word game.

 

[Piggy]

I disagree. Words can mean anything to anyone.

No, they can't. I can't simply decide that "oxygen" means "the element with atomic number 12" and go about making conclusions about the properties of oxygen based on that.

If you're going to make a serious claim about God, it cannot reasonably be based on a Humpty Dumpty definition which would be rejected by those who believe in and worship God.

 

[Piggy]

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

That's a very simple definition, but one which appears very convincing at first glance, and so is difficult to dispatch briefly.

I don't have time to hash it all out right now, but I will say that it amounts to an undetectable dog. More on this definition this evening if it hasn't already been dismantled by then.

 

[Taffer]

Sorry, but this point is not shrugworthy.

If there is no definition to be had, all claims are talk about nothing or nonsense.

And if all claims regarding God must be empty or meaningless, this does in fact rule out the possibility of God.

Which means, "God is real" cannot be true.

And that's not a word game.

If it is an empty concept, both "God is real" and "God is not real" are both not true. So we are back where we started.

Unless you are defining "empty proposition" in a way I am unfamiliar.

 

[Taffer]

No, they can't. I can't simply decide that "oxygen" means "the element with atomic number 12" and go about making conclusions about the properties of oxygen based on that.

Words can mean anything. Arguments based on those words can still be false.

If you're going to make a serious claim about God, it cannot reasonably be based on a Humpty Dumpty definition which would be rejected by those who believe in and worship God.

When did I do this?

 

[Taffer]

That's a very simple definition, but one which appears very convincing at first glance, and so is difficult to dispatch briefly.

I don't have time to hash it all out right now, but I will say that it amounts to an undetectable dog. More on this definition this evening if it hasn't already been dismantled by then.

Nothing in the definition says it is undetectable, you are assuming things.

"Dismantled" Zealous much?

 

[BillyJoe]

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).

But that is true as well. A particle cannot be in two places at the same time. The best way to remember this is "The quantum particle/wave departs and arrives as a particle and travels as a wave"

 

[Taffer]

But that is true as well. A particle cannot be in two places at the same time. The best way to remember this is "The quantum particle/wave departs and arrives as a particle and travels as a wave"

In the slit experiment I recall, a single electron went through the device at a time, yet it still produced the same interference pattern as when multiple electrons were present. Also, adding a detector to determine which of the two slits the electron passed through (L or R), demolished this pattern. Adding a scrambler to the detector so we no longer had knowledge of which slit the electron passed through made the pattern reappear.

Now, I may be wrong (I'm a biologist, not a physicist), but that seems that both a) the single particle interfears with itself (is thus in two places at once), and b) QM is freaking weird, man.

 

[BillyJoe]

In the slit experiment I recall, a single electron went through the device at a time, yet it still produced the same interference pattern as when multiple electrons were present.

The electron wave/particle departs the emitting device as a particle, travels through both slits as a wave (thereafter interfering with itself) and arrives at the wall as a particle.

Also, adding a detector to determine which of the two slits the electron passed through (L or R), demolished this pattern.

The electron particle/wave departs the emitting device as a particle, travels to the slits as a wave, arrives at the detector as a particle, travels towards the wall as a wave (emanating from only that slit and, hence, no interference) and arrives at the wall as a particle.

Adding a scrambler to the detector so we no longer had knowledge of which slit the electron passed through made the pattern reappear.

Hmmm...haven't heard of that one.
Do you have a reference?

Now, I may be wrong (I'm a biologist, not a physicist), but that seems that both a) the single particle interfears with itself (is thus in two places at once).

No. Particles interfering with themselves would not produce an interference pattern typical of waves.

and b) QM is freaking weird, man.

Yes, it is freaking weird, I have to agree with you there.

 

[Taffer]

The electron wave/particle departs the emitting device as a particle, travels through both slits as a wave (thereafter interfering with itself) and arrives at the wall as a particle.

The electron particle/wave departs the emitting device as a particle, travels to the slits as a wave, arrives at the detector as a particle, travels towards the wall as a wave (emanating from only that slit and, hence, no interference) and arrives at the wall as a particle.

Ok, I stand corrected.

Hmmm...haven't heard of that one.
Do you have a reference?

Sorry, not off hand. Feel free to ignore it. If I find one I'll post it, though.

No. Particles interfering with themselves would not produce an interference pattern typical of waves.

What pattern would they create?

 

[andyandy]

Hmmm...haven't heard of that one.
Do you have a reference?

.

i think he's refering to the quantum eraser slit experiment....

In the two-slit experiment, the common "wisdom" is that the position-momentum uncertainty relation . . . makes it impossible to determine which slit the photon (or electron) passes through without at the same time disturbing the photon (or electron) enough to destroy the interference pattern. However, it has been proven that under certain circumstances this common interpretation may not be true.
In 1982, Scully and Drühl [2] found a way around this position-momentum uncertainty obstacle and proposed a quantum eraser to obtain which-path or particle-like information without scattering or otherwise introducing large uncontrolled phase factors to disturb the interference. To be sure the interference pattern disappears when which-path information is obtained. But it reappears when we erase (quantum erasure) the which-path information

.

http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser

 

[Taffer]

Thankyou andyandy, that sounds about right.

 

[tsg]

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

What the hell are you talking about? I said my hypothetical god was intelligent, and defined what I meant by it. Your problem was that the structure containing that intelligence isn't perceivable by us and I said, "so what?" I have made a claim and it has been consistent throughout. Disprove it if you can.

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

Exactly how do you infer that from my statement?

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.

This is about the fourth time you've said that and yet to back it up with any actual logic or reasoning. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

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."

What properties do you want to know?

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.

So my hypothetical god is 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."

No, I'm saying he does things we can't detect reliably. It's not the same thing. In order for an effect to become known to us, it has to be observed. And it has to be observed often enough to be accepted as fact. If my hypothetical god's interactions are only rare and only observed by very few, their claims would likely be dismissed. That doesn't mean they aren't happening.

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.

The problem is the "given everything we've ever observed or reasoned" bit. It's a qualification that specifically excludes that which we don't understand yet and makes the statement "god is impossible" as meaningless as "god is not disprovable" by those who allow god to be anything and everything. That we haven't observed it reliably doesn't make it not exist.

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."

I have.

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.

No it isn't. Your constraints on the intelligence and consciousness of my hypothetical god were that the structure exist in this universe when I have specifically stated that they don't. The structure, his body if you prefer, exists outside our perception. I haven't changed any definitions and have been consistent throughout.

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.

And what known sense is that? Are you now defining what god should and shouldn't be? Because the whole purpose of me providing a definition and the subject of this debate from the outset was that "god" is undefined. You don't get to say that "god" is a meaningless term and then complain the meaning I provide doesn't qualify as "god". If you want to argue against your concept of god, go for it, but I'm not going to defend it. If you want me to provide a meaning for the term, stop making assumptions I haven't made.

I appear to have missed it, so please reiterate.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2627907#post2627907

and

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2629859#post2629859

and I will add the following:

Some people have observed his interactions with this universe but have little to no evidence to support them.

 

[Vintij]

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.

No your right, I have a few counts against the god theory. Generally people asking god for something, or some kind of legitimate chance at winning, or getting the part, or passing the test. This research came back negative because none of these things happend. The difference in my research is, I am trying to find out if life threatening or tragic type events, result in more miracles than superficial events. Meaning if you pray for something trivial like passing a test, or money or a girl.....will the prayer be answered more so than tragic type events like losing a dog, or having a sibling out in Iraq defending his/her own life. Basically is there a gap and if there is, how big is this gap. If I can eliminate trivial prayer and paranormal activity out of the GOD equation, I could then focus all of my research on life tragedy type prayers.

It is my belief that if there is a god, he certainly would not take pitty on trivial prayer and superficial material. Therefore, we can sub-categorize paranormal activity, and luck into a different equation seperate from the actual GOD theory.

Which would mean that everyone who is successful right now because of "god" is lying. It is luck or opportunity that got them to where they are.

This is what I am trying to prove. That God is not a judemental being, but a real life miracle. If that
exists.

Thereby proving the bible wrong once again in the phrase "only god can judge me", because I believe judgement is a human trait. An omnipotent being would not know or care about judging anyone. He has no ego.

 

[chriswl]

If it is an empty concept, both "God is real" and "God is not real" are both not true. So we are back where we started.

Ahh!! I've already covered this. OK, I'll try to be rigorous this time.

1) Assume the word "God" is "empty" or "meaningless".
2) This means the word "God" has no definition.
3) This means the word "God" doesn't refer to anything.
4) Therefore there are no things that are referred to by our word "God".
5) Many things unknown to us may exist.
6) None of these unknown things are referred to by our word "God" (from 4)
7) Therefore our word God does not refer to any unknown, existing thing.
8) Our word God does not refer to any known existing thing.
9) So our word God does not refer to any thing known or unknown.
10) All existing things are either known or unknown (or some combination of the two).
11) Therefore our word God does not refer to anything that exists.
12) Therefore, there is nothing called God, using our definition of God.
13) Therefore it is correct to say, using our definition of God, "God does not exist".

QED. From "the word God is meaningless" to "God does not exist" in twelve easy steps. Which step do you disagree with?

 

[Vintij]

Ahh!! I've already covered this. OK, I'll try to be rigorous this time.

1) Assume the word "God" is "empty" or "meaningless".
2) This means the word "God" has no definition.
3) This means the word "God" doesn't refer to anything.
4) Therefore there are no things that are referred to by our word "God".
5) Many things unknown to us may exist.
6) None of these unknown things are referred to by our word "God" (from 4)
7) Therefore our word God does not refer to any unknown, existing thing.
8) Our word God does not refer to any known existing thing.
9) So our word God does not refer to any thing known or unknown.
10) All existing things are either known or unknown (or some combination of the two).
11) Therefore our word God does not refer to anything that exists.
12) Therefore, there is nothing called God, using our definition of God.
13) Therefore it is correct to say, using our definition of God, "God does not exist".

QED. From "the word God is meaningless" to "God does not exist" in twelve easy steps. Which step do you disagree with?

Your 12 easy steps are highly fragmented.

First and most importantly, you assume the word GOD has no definition. It does. It can mean many things, most unexplainable but some have actual substance like the word "creator".

But generally, you can say that the word god means "miracle" which we have thousands of accounts of "miracles" that happen every year, but cant be documented. Therefore your 12 steps to the word "GOD" meaning nothing, is flawed because "GOD" can easily mean many things that are sometimes reported and sometimes unreported but always unexplained. Like UFO, always documented and reported.....never explained logically.

With your 12 easy steps, the phrase "UFO" would mean nothingness. And the word "elementary particle" would also mean nothingness. Both of these are unknown and dont exist as of right now. But both are believed to exist. Especially the elementary partice or "shadow particle".

 

[chriswl]

First and most importantly, you assume the word GOD has no definition. It does. It can mean many things, most unexplainable but some have actual substance like the word "creator".

Its just an assumption, an assumption which I believe is incorrect. I'm just saying that IF the word God cannot be defined THEN we can say there is no God.

But generally, you can say that the word god means "miracle" which we have thousands of accounts of "miracles" that happen every year, but cant be documented. Therefore your 12 steps to the word "GOD" meaning nothing, is flawed because "GOD" can easily mean many things that are sometimes reported and sometimes unreported but always unexplained. Like UFO, always documented and reported.....never explained logically.

I agree. We know what the expression UFO means even if we don't have a scientific explanation of the phenomena.

If someone reports seeing a UFO we don't pretend to not know what they mean. We know that they saw some airbourne phenomena that they could not explain. We can have a definition without having an explanation.

If God is defined as a being who created the universe we know what this means, even though we don't know how any God could have done it.

To say that the word God has no meaning is an attempt by some non-believers to weasel out of having to admit that they believe there is no God. So God resides in a convenient twilight zone between existence and non-existence. But there is no such place. There are the things that exist and that's all there is. Any defintion or description that you can come up with that doesn't refer to any of these existing things is a definition of something that doesn't exist.