Maybe we CAN disprove God...

[BillyJoe]

If it occurs within this universe, it is natural and can be traced; there is a reason for almost everything. I only say "almost everything" because someone will probably feel like bringing up quantum whatsitdonuts, and I don't feel like arguing the point.

Trouble is the quantum is the underlying basis of everything.
Everything is made up of quantum particles which obey incomprehensible quantum rules.
The sun wouldn't shine if it weren't for quantum indeterminacy.
So that's about everything you're trying to shove under the carpet.

Either way, if anything happens within this universe, there is a reason, even if that reason may exist outside of the universe. Nothing is, in the end, unexplainable; though it may be very difficult to trace.

So explain the quantum which is the underlying basis of everything we see and the reason for the light by which we see.

Supernatural, to me, is an Argument from Ignorance; you cannot explain it, therefore it is unnatural. It reminds me of those that see edited photos and film of "ghosts", and then proclaim it a supernatural phenomenon. They are ignorant as to the photographic editing or film editing; thus, they label it supernatural. (That probably wasn't the best example, but I can't think of a better one).

You're saying the quantum is supernatural?

 

[BillyJoe]

Vintij, you were wrong. We are on the next page.

 

[Lonewulf]

So explain the quantum which is the underlying basis of everything we see and the reason for the light by which we see.

Explain the quantum what?

You're saying the quantum is supernatural?

How the hell did you come to that conclusion?

Whatever you're smoking, keep it away from me. I prefer cogent thought.

 

[BillyJoe]

Try again...

If it occurs within this universe, it is natural and can be traced; there is a reason for almost everything. I only say "almost everything" because someone will probably feel like bringing up quantum whatsitdonuts, and I don't feel like arguing the point.

Trouble is quantum interactions are the underlying basis of everything that exists.
Everything is made up of quantum particles which obey incomprehensible quantum rules.
The sun wouldn't shine if it weren't for quantum indeterminacy.
So that's about everything you're trying to shove under the carpet.

Either way, if anything happens within this universe, there is a reason, even if that reason may exist outside of the universe. Nothing is, in the end, unexplainable; though it may be very difficult to trace.

So explain how quantum interactions - which are the underlying basis of everything we see and the reason for the light by which we see - work.
As far as I know, nobody has a sensible interpretation of quantum physics.

Supernatural, to me, is an Argument from Ignorance; you cannot explain it, therefore it is unnatural.

Okay, I mangled that one. I read too quickly - the footy was starting!

 

[allanb]

I haven't read through the whole of this amazingly long thread, and I honestly don't feel I need to.

Much as I would like to be able to disprove the existence of God, it seems clear to me that it can't be done. If your definition of God includes the ability to do anything (Christians use the word "omnipotent") then it is obvious that, no matter what I believe about the nature and origin of the universe, you can argue that there is a god who caused it to be that way.

I do not believe this for one moment, but we are talking about proof here.

 

[Lonewulf]

Trouble is quantum interactions are the underlying basis of everything that exists.
Everything is made up of quantum particles which obey incomprehensible quantum rules.
The sun wouldn't shine if it weren't for quantum indeterminacy.
So that's about everything you're trying to shove under the carpet.

I do not have enough study into quantum dynamics to comment, and honestly, almost everyone that brings up quantum theory has demonstrated a lack of full knowledge on the subject. Unless you have a degree in the field, I don't wish to get into a debate on the subject.

So explain how quantum interactions - which are the underlying basis of everything we see and the reason for the light by which we see - work.

Obviously, magic.

As far as I know, nobody has a sensible interpretation of quantum physics.

Magic, then. I mean, there's no way for them to work with any natural mechanism, right? I mean, if we haven't found it yet, it must not exist. It does stuff for no reason whatsoever. At all. Period. Nope, we can say for sure, without understanding the subject fully.

Anyways, does anyone have anything to comment on claims of the supernatural or God? As in, something relevant to the discussion, please?

 

[BillyJoe]

I haven't read through the whole of this amazingly long thread, and I honestly don't feel I need to.

Much as I would like to be able to disprove the existence of God, it seems clear to me that it can't be done. If your definition of God includes the ability to do anything (Christians use the word "omnipotent") then it is obvious that, no matter what I believe about the nature and origin of the universe, you can argue that there is a god who caused it to be that way.

I do not believe this for one moment, but we are talking about proof here.

Read just Piggy's posts and see what you think.
His arguments are sort of convincing but I don't know why they are wrong.
Maybe you could give us some insights.

I tried "The Advanced Alien" hypothesis to show how a powerful being such as God could even have a natural explanation and therefore certainly not disprovable. An advanced alien could have created our universe and even found the secret of eternal life. He could even offer this to us humans if we behave ourselves. But all that got me in reply was that this is not a description of God. God is supernatural. Still, if He could almost have a natural explanation, there may not be too much of a stretch from advanced alien to God, so how can we say that He is disproven?

God is the uncaused cause of everything else, including our advanced alien, who could be (?almost) indistinguishable from Him in every other way.

 

[BillyJoe]

I do not have enough study into quantum dynamics to comment, and honestly, almost everyone that brings up quantum theory has demonstrated a lack of full knowledge on the subject. Unless you have a degree in the field, I don't wish to get into a debate on the subject.

If I did have a degree, you couldn't debate me, you would just have to sit stupidly and listen. Where's the fun in that?

On the other hand, I don't think you need a degree in quantum physics to have an understanding of it sufficient to see that there are no sensible interpretations of quantum interactions.

Really, if what happens at the quantum level is possible, anything is possible.

Magic, then. I mean, there's no way for them to work with any natural mechanism, right? I mean, if we haven't found it yet, it must not exist. It does stuff for no reason whatsoever. At all. Period. Nope, we can say for sure, without understanding the subject fully.

You have probably heard of quantum entanglement. The implication is what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" and he refused to believe in it. What happens to one quantum particle affects instantaneously a particle with which it is entangled (even if they are on opposite sides of the universe). This has been proven beyond doubt.
You have possibly heard of Alain Aspect's experimental proof of the quantum's violation of Bells's Inequality. Doesn't matter if you haven't. Essentially what happens here is the equivalent of saying that the number of teenagers in the world is greater than the number of female teenagers plus males of all ages! Impossible! Yet it happens!

Anyways, does anyone have anything to comment on claims of the supernatural or God? As in, something relevant to the discussion, please?

My point is that, if quantum interactions are possible, then anything is possible. Even God. Maybe, if you do not understand quantum physics and therefore do not understand what is possible to be real, you are not in a position to disprove God.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Lonewulf]

If I did have a degree, you couldn't debate me, you would just have to sit stupidly and listen. Where's the fun in that?

On the other hand, I don't think you need a degree in quantum physics to have an understanding of it sufficient to see that there are no sensible interpretations of quantum interactions.

Really, if what happens at the quantum level is possible, anything is possible.

Right. Which is why unpredictable things happen all the time. I mean, we can't study the evolution of stars, or of planets... I can't predict gravity... physics laws go out the window.

And, once more, the majority of people that quote quantum theory at me usually get it wrong, or usually misunderstand basic concepts.

You have probably heard of quantum entanglement. The implication is what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" and he refused to believe in it. What happens to one quantum particle affects instantaneously a particle with which it is entangled (even if they are on opposite sides of the universe). This has been proven beyond doubt.

And? What does this have to do with anything? At all? Seriously?

If something affects something else, then there is a reason. Just because we do not observe that reason or do not fully comprehend it yet, does not mean that it doesn't exist.

You have possibly heard of Alain Aspect's experimental proof of the quantum's violation of Bells's Inequality. Doesn't matter if you haven't. Essentially what happens here is the equivalent of saying that the number of teenagers in the world is greater than the number of female teenagers plus males of all ages! Impossible! Yet it happens!

What?

Seriously, what are you saying?

My point is that, if quantum interactions are possible, then anything is possible. Even God.

Uh, yeah, okay. If you say so.

Oh, wait, I forgot: You weren't the authority on the subject. Nevermind.

Maybe, if you do not understand quantum physics and therefore do not understand what is possible to be real, you are not in a position to disprove God.

Uh, sure, okay.

Anyone else want to debate?

 

[BillyJoe]

Right. Which is why unpredictable things happen all the time.

I said "anything is possible", not that it happens, let alone "all the time".
Also I was not talking about "unpredictable" things.

I mean, we can't study the evolution of stars, or of planets... I can't predict gravity... physics laws go out the window.

Physics laws do not go out the window.
If anything, logic goes out the window.

And, once more, the majority of people that quote quantum theory at me usually get it wrong, or usually misunderstand basic concepts.

If, as you imply, I have misunderstood the concept, I am happy to be corrected.

And? What does this have to do with anything? At all? Seriously?

Piggy's argument is largely a logical one. The probelm is that logic doesn't apply with some things that we know to be true. Therefore, maybe logic doesn't apply where God is concerned. (Remember I am exploring this question not defending a position).

If something affects something else, then there is a reason. Just because we do not observe that reason or do not fully comprehend it yet, does not mean that it doesn't exist.

It is more than a question of "not knowing the reason yet" or "not fully comprehending it yet", it is a question of it being logically impossible at any time, ever. Again, i am happy to be shown that I have this wrong.

Seriously, what are you saying?

That what happens at the quantum level is as logical impossible as that the number of teenagers in the world is greater than the number of female teenagers plus males of all ages. That is the conclusion of Aspect's experiment demonstrating conclusively that Bell's Inequality is violated.

Uh, yeah, okay. If you say so.

No, I am exploring this question, not reaching conclusions.

Oh, wait, I forgot: You weren't the authority on the subject. Nevermind.

You can read the details of the Aspect experiment and see for yourself that what happens is as logically impossible as that statement above about teenagers. If you disagree, I am happy to be corrected.
As I said, I don't think you don;t need to be an authority on the subject.

Uh, sure, okay.

We can only base what's possible on what we know of the real world. If there is a portion of reality that you wish to exclude from consideration, how can you be so certain about your conclusion (that god can be disproven)?

 

[Lonewulf]

Piggy's argument is largely a logical one. The probelm is that logic doesn't apply with some things that we know to be true. Therefore, maybe logic doesn't apply where God is concerned. (Remember I am exploring this question not defending a position).

Seriously, this is a derail from the points I was making in my post.

 

[BillyJoe]

Seriously, this is a derail from the points I was making in my post.

Pity it was my post that opened up this line of enquiry and that it was this line of enquiry that you were responding to.

 

[Lonewulf]

Pity it was my post that opened up this line of enquiry and that it was this line of enquiry that you were responding to.

I was talking about the supernatural and natural processes. Do I need to quote myself? You then responded to me, taking the conversation way off track.

Actually, I think you proved my point. If you wouldn't call quantum mechanics "supernatural", then would you call other strange phenomenon "supernatural"? My point had to do with labelling and objects existing in the natural.

 

[qayak]

Actually, I think you proved my point. If you wouldn't call quantum mechanics "supernatural", then would you call other strange phenomenon "supernatural"? My point had to do with labelling and objects existing in the natural.

If we really were created in the image of god, he isn't going to look too strange to us but he will not be bound by the laws of nature so he will be capable of some really strange feats. Even though he doesn't appear strange, god would still be supernatural.

Other things are completely unrecognizable to us and we may never understand them. They are very strange indeed but they are still governed by the laws of nature so they are not supernatural.

It isn't the strangeness, it is the ability to violate known laws that is important.

 

[Lonewulf]

If we really were created in the image of god, he isn't going to look to strange to us but he will not be bound by the laws of nature so he will be capable of some really strange feats. Even though he doesn't appear strange, god would still be supernatural.

Supernatural is defined as "really strange feats"?

It isn't the strangeness, it is the ability to violate known laws that is important.

And if something, such as say, Quantum Mechanics introduces such things -- then you would call quarks supernatural magic thingies?

If we develop a "faster than light" spaceship, it would be supernatural? Even if we use natural processes that we don't know about currently (but know in the future) to produce it?

Natural known laws are not deductive. They are not 100% certainties. For all we know, there may exist a way to circumvent them. We just haven't currently found one yet.

 

[qayak]

Supernatural is defined as "really strange feats"?

Do I have to quote myself?

And if something, such as say, Quantum Mechanics introduces such things -- then you would call quarks supernatural magic thingies?

"It isn't the strangeness, it is the ability to violate known laws that is important." (Is there an echo in here? )

If we develop a "faster than light" spaceship, it would be supernatural? Even if we use natural processes that we don't know about currently (but know in the future) to produce it?

Pretty much.

Natural known laws are not deductive. They are not 100% certainties. For all we know, there may exist a way to circumvent them. We just haven't currently found one yet.

That is the paradox. If something violates the law, is it supernatural or is the law wrong? I think for things like quantum mechanics, it is most likely the law that would be wrong but if a being that looked just like us showed up that could do things we were completely incapable of, they would pretty much be supernatural.

That is why I don't think it would be hard to prove the god of the bible if he so exists. Shoot him with a .50 cal. rifle and he doesn't get wounded or killed. You can't drown him or freeze him to death. he can fly unaided and transport through time and space at will. He knows what you have done and what you will do, unerringly with no ambiguity. Etc.

I think though, you ask the wrong question. The question I find important is: "Can something that is not bound by the laws of the universe exist in that universe?" In other words, can a supernatural being exist in a natural universe?

Personally, I think not but I really haven't given it a great deal of thought.

 

[Lonewulf]

Do I have to quote myself?

"It isn't the strangeness, it is the ability to violate known laws that is important." (Is there an echo in here? )

Pretty much.

That is the paradox. If something violates the law, is it supernatural or is the law wrong? I think for things like quantum mechanics, it is most likely the law that would be wrong but if a being that looked just like us showed up that could do things we were completely incapable of, they would pretty much be supernatural.

Okay.

So you would call ANY FUTURE TECH we are unfamiliar with supernatural.

That's... really all I have to say on the subject.

Everything you mention about God later on in your post could be adequately explained by technology discovered in science fiction novels. Those are not supernatural. So really, your argument is meaningless; there potentially exists, in the natural world, ways to be supernatural. But it's natural, so therefore, the term "supernatural" becomes meaningless.

It's STILL an argument from ignorance. You don't know how it works, therefore it's magic. Sorry, but I live in the world of science, not magic.

I think though, you ask the wrong question. The question I find important is: "Can something that is not bound by the laws of the universe exist in that universe?" In other words, can a supernatural being exist in a natural universe?

Personally, I think not but I really haven't given it a great deal of thought.

Since your only definition of "supernatural" is something that violates known laws, then yes. Of course it can.

"Natural Laws" always allow leeway for changes. If something strange happens, you can modify the law. Anything that "breaks" the law has simply shown that there exists an exception.

If there exist ways to circumvent said laws, science adjusts. Your concept does not; it simply puts a label on the subject and ignores it. That is not science.

 

[BillyJoe]

I was talking about the supernatural and natural processes. Do I need to quote myself? You then responded to me, taking the conversation way off track.

What I was trying to show is that quantum interactions, which we regard as being natural occurences, do not have a logical naturalistic explanation or interpretation. The non-zero, positive integers a+b cannot be greater than a alone. But in quantum physics they are (no tricks either like the matrix solution to a*b not being equal to b*a). This means that logic is out the window as a reliable guide in at least one context. So why could that not also be the case in another context? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If quantum interactions can wander beyond the sphere of logic why not god as well. Where does that leave the disproof of god?

Actually, I think you proved my point. If you wouldn't call quantum mechanics "supernatural", then would you call other strange phenomenon "supernatural"? My point had to do with labelling and objects existing in the natural.

But here you are simply producing the argument that god cannot be proven. You are saying that the only way to prove god is by using naturalistic explanations. But, if you prove god using naturalistic explanations, you have actually proven that he is not supernatural, and that, therefore, he is not god.
Well, I guess we already knew that.

 

[qayak]

Okay.So you would call ANY FUTURE TECH we are unfamiliar with supernatural.

No.

That's... really all I have to say on the subject.

That's too bad because you haven't gotten it figured out yet.

Everything you mention about God later on in your post could be adequately explained by technology discovered in science fiction novels. Those are not supernatural. So really, your argument is meaningless; there potentially exists, in the natural world, ways to be supernatural. But it's natural, so therefore, the term "supernatural" becomes meaningless.

You seem to believe that everything we know is wrong. It is this mistake that leds you to your faulty logic.

Suppose for a moment that one of the laws we consider true really is true. Then in order to be supernatural a being would have to be able to violate that law or have it not affect them. So, a being would have to be able to build a perpetual motion machine or float around unaffected by gravity, unaided by technology.

At the same time, that law would be wrong and discarded or a qualifier would be put on it which would bring the violation back into the realm of the natural. So the law preventing pertetual motion would change to say, "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant . . . unless Zork is involved in which case this doesn't hold"

It's STILL an argument from ignorance. You don't know how it works, therefore it's magic. Sorry, but I live in the world of science, not magic.

Actually you are the one arguing from ignorance. You are like everyone who has ever believed THEY have the secret to perpetual motion. You think the laws don't apply to your ideas.

Since your only definition of "supernatural" is something that violates known laws, then yes. Of course it can.

You seem to have trouble holding two rules in your mind and applying them to a given phenomenon. In science, if a rule is violated, it is proven wrong and discarded. So, if something comes along that violates a law, the law is wrong and a new one is looked for. That would immediately mean that whatever it was that violated the law would not be considered supernatural, it would simply be natural.

"Natural Laws" always allow leeway for changes. If something strange happens, you can modify the law. Anything that "breaks" the law has simply shown that there exists an exception.

If there exist ways to circumvent said laws, science adjusts. Your concept does not; it simply puts a label on the subject and ignores it. That is not science.

Now you are catching on. Apply the second rule at the same time you apply the first and you will have it. The two rules are:

1- Anything supernatural would have to be able to violate the known laws of the universe.

2- If anything violates a known law, the law is wrong.

Do you see now why I say nothing supernatural can possibly exist in a natural universe?

 

[Lonewulf]

You seem to have trouble holding two rules in your mind and applying them to a given phenomenon. In science, if a rule is violated, it is proven wrong and discarded. So, if something comes along that violates a law, the law is wrong and a new one is looked for. That would immediately mean that whatever it was that violated the law would not be considered supernatural, it would simply be natural.

Yes, sort of. But it's not entirely discarded, but the exceptions are noted and if it violates a theory, a better one is sought for. But it's not entirely discarded.

I mean, if I discover a slight problem with genetics, that doesn't throw out the entire theory. If I develop an antigravity device, that doesn't mean that gravity is disproven. That's about the extent of my disagreement.

1- Anything supernatural would have to be able to violate the known laws of the universe.

2- If anything violates a known law, the law is wrong.

Do you see now why I say nothing supernatural can possibly exist in a natural universe?

So...

Does a supernatural universe exist, out of curiosity?

I kinda skipped to the conclusion, but I think I see your point now.