Maybe we CAN disprove God...

[thaiboxerken]

By placing their god outside of the laws of physics, they've just made their god unfalsifiable.

 

[EGarrett]

to what in my post are you referring to?

The part about arguing that God isn't bound by any rules.

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'?

Brain activity, conscious response (Turing Test), generally, the ability to produce results that are both nonrandom and nonpredictable.

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.

Well, hopefully the above answers will clear some of that up.

and what does this have to do with thermodynamics?

You said my first assertion, and I assumed you were talking about my original claim that matter cannot be created or destroyed, making God creating the universe impossible given everything we've observed.

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.

Some arbitrary object certainly could be conscious, but we have to be very careful not to change the attributes of God for convenience. We have to assign a property to God, THEN decide if that is possible given what we know. The attributes I assigned were that it was the consciousness of the entire universe or a being with control over the universe.

If you change it to a consciousness in a remote smaller part of the universe, we're shifting definitions, moving the concept of "God" away from anything that it is commonly understood to be, and thus turning the conversation into nonsense.

 

[EGarrett]

you provided the assumption that god created the universe yourself. now you have to work with that assumption until you find a contradiction.

The contradiction is between the claim of God as creator and everything we've observed about our reality. (that's probably a better term to use instead of "the universe")

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.

I certainly can't say that it never has or never will happen. But I could say that our observations dictate that it is impossible. I do agree though that definitions can be shifted and adjusted to try and make God more unfalsifiable (I can't claim to disprove any possible definition of God), which is why we have to agree beforehand what the terms are.

 

[lordcow]

The part about arguing that God isn't bound by any rules.

ie. 'we have no reason to believe that god isn't bound the universe's rules.'

of course we do, your starting assumption is that god created the universe, including its laws, and my analogy points out why he is not bound by his creation.

Brain activity,

by 'know' in bold i mean how do you know with absolute surety. certain forms of brain activity may well be an indicator of consciousness but you can by no means prove that you need to have an organic brain comprised of neurons in order to be conscious.

the ability to produce results that are both nonrandom and nonpredictable.

is there a word for simultaneously nonrandom and nonpredictable, or can you at least describe this characteristic in a positive sense?

conscious response (Turing Test), generally,

my dog can't pass a turing test, but i'm willing to bet he's conscious.

consciousness is self awareness. it is necessarily a private experience. it does not necessarily have to provide physical responses to your experiments, it very well may not be able to but still maintain a private sense and you would never know.

You said my first assertion, and I assumed you were talking about my original claim that matter cannot be created or destroyed, making God creating the universe impossible given everything we've observed.

sorry no, i meant in the quoted paragraph - "Therefore, according to what we've observed, there is no possible known way that this can occur This would make God impossible." the 1st assertion is the 1st sentence, and the deduction i spoke of is the 2nd sentence.

Some arbitrary object certainly could be conscious, but we have to be very careful not to change the attributes of God for convenience. We have to assign a property to God, THEN decide if that is possible given what we know. The attributes I assigned were that it was the consciousness of the entire universe or a being with control over the universe.

If you change it to a consciousness in a remote smaller part of the universe, we're shifting definitions, moving the concept of "God" away from anything that it is commonly understood to be, and thus turning the conversation into nonsense.

i never called this arbitrary object god and i made sure to include "or the entire universe" so i haven't shifted your definition.

you however haven't retorted or conceded to my point that your argument from ignorance is invalid.

The contradiction is between the claim of God as creator and everything we've observed about our reality. (that's probably a better term to use instead of "the universe")

where's the contradiction? it is perfectly consistent that god sparked off the big bang and let the universe run from there as we observe it, just as in the simulating cosmologist's case.

I certainly can't say that it never has or never will happen

great, agreed.

But I could say that our observations dictate that it is impossible

no, you can say your observations dictate it is unlikely. impossible is a strong word. (i'm only being pedantic since you are claiming to disprove god, and proof is an equally strong word).

 

[Beleth]

I certainly can't say that it never has or never will happen. But I could say that our observations dictate that it is impossible.

But it doesn't. Our observations dictate only our hypotheses; reality is impervious to change by our observations.

 

[Piggy]

Now y'all know I can't stay away from this one.

I've disproven God before, and I'll be more than happy to do it again.

I'm ready to rumble.

 

[Piggy]

Here's one trick to look for....

If this thread continues -- as most of these do -- we'll eventually get down to the brass tacks that there's zero evidence of God, and a perfectly acceptable non-God explanation for everything that's not still over there in the "we don't know" category.

In the history of ideas, God so far bats nil.

Once the theists are resigned to the fact that they can't wiggle out of this situation, they then resort to removing God from any reality we know, and attempt to assert that we can't disprove that God -- which is a no-thing they refuse to define -- may be in this purely hypothetical no-place and no-time.

In other words, they assert that God may be real, on the condition that we move into a hypothetical space where real is indistinguishable from unreal.

In other words, God can only be real if "real" ceases to have any meaning.

This is nonsense.

Therefore, the assertion that God is real is also nonsense. And no one is obliged to concede that nonsense may be true. Therefore, the "you can't say it isn't possible" argument is void.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Here's one trick to look for....

If this thread continues -- as most of these do -- we'll eventually get down to the brass tacks that there's zero evidence of God, and a perfectly acceptable non-God explanation for everything that's not still over there in the "we don't know" category.

In the history of ideas, God so far bats nil.

What if I would use a not so uncommon argument and say… you, Piggy, you are God (as is everything else). Now there’s plenty of evidence that you (aka God) exists.

Once the theists are resigned to the fact that they can't wiggle out of this situation, they then resort to removing God from any reality we know, and attempt to assert that we can't disprove that God -- which is a no-thing they refuse to define -- may be in this purely hypothetical no-place and no-time.

Perhaps they refuse to define God because there are no sufficient definitions, notions or words to define God? Even the term God is insufficient; it’s just a means of communication.

Hence we have the catafatic tradition who speaks about God in terms of: God is LIKE this, and this and this (always knowing it’s not actually this, but the best they can communicate). Or the apofatic traditions who speaks about God in the negative: God is not this, or this, or this.

In other words, they assert that God may be real, on the condition that we move into a hypothetical space where real is indistinguishable from unreal.

In other words, God can only be real if "real" ceases to have any meaning.

This is nonsense.

Well, if the map isn’t the territory, and we describe God as the territory, it becomes futile to try to prove or disprove God by simply creating new maps. However, even saying that the ‘map is not the territory’ is still just a map… but you still understand what it implies. That’s the problem with disproving God: it’s impossible to communicate about the territory without maps, yet there is that understanding that the territory exists without maps, even though we are always stuck with maps in order to experience anything. It’s a phenomenological dilemma.

It’s kind of like the old Taoist monk saying on his deathbed: between the time I was born and when I die, I have uttered nothing but nonsense (yet in the core of that statement lies something implicitly sensible).

Therefore, the assertion that God is real is also nonsense. And no one is obliged to concede that nonsense may be true. Therefore, the "you can't say it isn't possible" argument is void.

Well, that whole argument is based on the premise that language can picture all of reality, which it can’t. Thus it’s void due to our limits, not void in absolute terms (even though ‘absolute’ here is still trapped within our understanding of ‘absolute’).

 

[Piggy]

What if I would use a not so uncommon argument and say… you, Piggy, you are God (as is everything else). Now there’s plenty of evidence that you (aka God) exists.

It's like Abraham Lincoln once said. How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?

Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

If you have to call a tail a leg to make your position correct, you're talking nonsense.

 

[Piggy]

Perhaps they refuse to define God because there are no sufficient definitions, notions or words to define God? Even the term God is insufficient; it’s just a means of communication.

If what you say communicates nothing, it's not a means of communication. You're talking nonsense.

And no one is obliged to concede that nonsense might be true.

 

[Piggy]

Hence we have the catafatic tradition who speaks about God in terms of: God is LIKE this, and this and this (always knowing it’s not actually this, but the best they can communicate). Or the apofatic traditions who speaks about God in the negative: God is not this, or this, or this.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that God is not like everything you could possibly think.

And if God is not like everything we could possibly think, then God is like nothing.

And if God is exactly like nothing, then God ain't.

 

[Piggy]

Well, if the map isn’t the territory, and we describe God as the territory, it becomes futile to try to prove or disprove God by simply creating new maps. However, even saying that the ‘map is not the territory’ is still just a map… but you still understand what it implies.

No, I don't. That's just a bunch of hooey. It's a load of word salad you've given your mind to chew on. Don't mean jack.

 

[Piggy]

Well, that whole argument is based on the premise that language can picture all of reality, which it can’t. Thus it’s void due to our limits, not void in absolute terms (even though ‘absolute’ here is still trapped within our understanding of ‘absolute’).

It's not premised on any such thing.

You're either talking about something, or you're talking about nothing.

When you talk about nothing, it makes no difference to go pleading to the inadequacy of language, as if language's poverty somehow filled your pockets.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Experiencing quote angst, so I just write everything here. When I have gone through this debate with many theists, their answers often goes like illustrated below.

#29: I think you miss the theist (or perhaps pantheist) argument here. It’s not about giving new names to things that already have common names. It’s about trying to explain something that’s inseparable from anything. A tail is not a leg, but it’s still a dog, an animal, a being, a bunch of atoms etc. Basically you’re forcing an arbitrary ramification in order to argue against the existence of that ramification.

#30: Every time rebuttal takes place it’s targeted at a specific definition, thus primarily disproving the definition by some standard of evaluation. One can argue that the definition was wrong (or insufficient)… ad infinitum (without dealing with specific standards at all).

#31: Some theists would simply not be convinced by this. Some would say God is like anything you can think, anything you will be able to think, and more. It’s a problem for thinking and logic, not for God (that’s everything).

#32: Here you don’t even have to be a theist in order to understand that the ‘map simply isn’t the territory’. Feel free to call it hooey (I would like it to be hooey), this dilemma by Husserl doesn’t go away easily. At least I haven’t figured it out. Just calling it mind play isn’t really sufficient either.

#33: Either you succeed in conveying a message or you don’t. When talking about God, it’s usually a case of the latter (maybe because of insufficient commonality between experience and language). Even if that message isn’t understood or fail to make sense (according to some principles), it still doesn’t fall under the umbrella of nothingness – obviously it’s something.

It’s not necessarily about filling pockets; it’s about trying to communicate about something despite knowing the insufficiency in conveying that message. The other option, often a smarter one, would be to stay quiet. And many do.


Just a quick note: There’s some interesting research done in Harvard about extra-ordinary states of consciousness. Can’t recollect the names of the researcher now, but the general finding was that when people were asked to communicate about their experiences (mainly mystical experiences in a religious context); the general consensus was that the responders felt it was ludicrous to even try explaining such experiences. Like they had no adequate tools of doing so, except from saying their experience felt more real than “this” reality; with a similar certainty by which one knows he’s awake in the morning after a night of sleep.

Obviously it’s uncertain how such matter is to be interpreted, but it serves to show how difficult it can be to argue for or against a God (or whatever you like to call it). The content isn’t there. The rational thing is of course to not debate it at all; commonality is lacking for a point of departure.

 

[Piggy]

It’s not about giving new names to things that already have common names. It’s about trying to explain something that’s inseparable from anything. A tail is not a leg, but it’s still a dog, an animal, a being, a bunch of atoms etc. Basically you’re forcing an arbitrary ramification in order to argue against the existence of that ramification.

You can't define God as "everything" because that's not the definition of God, it's the definition of the Universe. And asserting that the Universe exists doesn't provide evidence that God exists, any more than it provides evidence that Santa Claus exists.

If you therefore fail to define God in some other way, you have not made a claim that anything exists at all. And no one is obliged to concede that a claim which has never been made might be true.

 

[Piggy]

Every time rebuttal takes place it’s targeted at a specific definition, thus primarily disproving the definition by some standard of evaluation. One can argue that the definition was wrong (or insufficient)… ad infinitum (without dealing with specific standards at all).

What specific standards are those? I don't see any.

If you're saying that God must exist, based on the fact that theists have set up an empty sack into which anyone may toss a new definition at will, then again, we're back to square zero, because a concept which may be defined in any new way someone chooses is a non-concept, and no one is obliged to concede that a claim for a non-concept actually describes something real.

It's a game of monty, with an infinite number of shills passing the dealer cards behind his back, so that every time the upturned card turns out not to be the ace, yet another may be produced and the dealer can cry "Try again!"

 

[Piggy]

Some would say God is like anything you can think, anything you will be able to think, and more. It’s a problem for thinking and logic, not for God (that’s everything).

If some would say that, then some would be be talking about an idea so lacking in definition as to have no qualities at all. And it is absurd to insist that others feel somehow obliged to concede the possible reality of a thing which does not even have any agreed-upon qualities.

 

[Piggy]

Here you don’t even have to be a theist in order to understand that the ‘map simply isn’t the territory’.

I understand that the map isn't the territory.

I understand that a photograph isn't a person, a cat isn't a sailboat, and my brother isn't the Queen Mum.

Now, do you have something to say about God?

 

[Piggy]

Either you succeed in conveying a message or you don’t. When talking about God, it’s usually a case of the latter (maybe because of insufficient commonality between experience and language). Even if that message isn’t understood or fail to make sense (according to some principles), it still doesn’t fall under the umbrella of nothingness – obviously it’s something.

If the message you send is, for example, "Tkojis dorr eujfhs aws oitvr dithgjkd", then there is no message at all. It's a non-starter. Because nothing has actually been conveyed.

BEFORE you can even begin to insist that others accept that God may be real, you must establish what this claimed God is. Period.

It’s not necessarily about filling pockets; it’s about trying to communicate about something despite knowing the insufficiency in conveying that message. The other option, often a smarter one, would be to stay quiet. And many do.

But consider your position here. The "you must admit that God might be real" argument demands that we are obliged to concede that this God thing could have actual existence.

If one stays quiet, or communicates nothing, then no claim has been made. And no one is required to concede that a claim might be true which has never been made.

It's not enough simply to say you have an idea in your head and leave it at that. Because ideas in your head are not God.

 

[Piggy]

Just a quick note: There’s some interesting research done in Harvard about extra-ordinary states of consciousness. Can’t recollect the names of the researcher now, but the general finding was that when people were asked to communicate about their experiences (mainly mystical experiences in a religious context); the general consensus was that the responders felt it was ludicrous to even try explaining such experiences. Like they had no adequate tools of doing so, except from saying their experience felt more real than “this” reality; with a similar certainty by which one knows he’s awake in the morning after a night of sleep.

Obviously it’s uncertain how such matter is to be interpreted, but it serves to show how difficult it can be to argue for or against a God (or whatever you like to call it). The content isn’t there. The rational thing is of course to not debate it at all; commonality is lacking for a point of departure.

What was shown is that by manipulating the brain in particular ways in particular areas it is possible to induce the kind of mental states people experience in relgious euphoria, and in other such conditions.

Anyone who's ever dropped any good acid already knows this is possible, and knows that the resulting states of highly distorted and euphoric experience are indeed indescribable once the experience is over.

But what you are describing is a mental experience. And God is not worshipped by billions of people who believe God to be only a mental experience.