Proof/falsification of god.

[Beleth]

I would accept absolutely any proof at all.

Behold, proof.

 

[Iamme]

I like it! But what if it happened by accident?

An 'accident' that Moses with a beard down to his knees (real, not fake) holding the stone tablets, came knocking at my door right after I wished him to do so?

 

[The Grave]

Genesis 3:"And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."

Response

1- The fact of light being 'good' is only relevant to beings with eyes. Why would god think of light as 'good'. No this clearly shows that right from the start, the bible is written by men for men.[not women]. It is not the word of a god.

2- Light and dark cannot be 'separated'. In fact there is no such thing as 'dark', in the same way that there is no colour 'black'. Both dark&black are merely what we perceive when there is no light, to stimulate nerves. So god cannot by definition, do this thing, so it didn't happen and the Genesis is fraudulent and so to is god a hoax.

3- In fact, in the solar system, there is NO SUCH THING AS NIGHT, and any god worth worshipping should know that. Whereas stone aged man would not! The fact is that it is ALWAYS DAY, and you call it night only when you stand in the shadow of the Earth! Would you call it night, if a fat person sat on your face and blocked the light? [No that would be the end!]. Also, that's just the type of hocus pocus that stone aged man would believe...especially when there was a solar eclipse!

Griff...We still live in the dark ages...well some of us do. THINK!

I thought this was so good it had to come here too!

THE MYSTERY OF GOD

God is a tree without roots
A galloping horse without legs
An eagle, soaring without wings...

God is tasteless, formless and empty.
They flavour IT with bread and wine
Shape IT with a man and a cross
And fill IT, with mystery...

Griff...

 

[strathmeyer]

Behold, proof.

Now I see the error of my original statement (besides just the ambiguous subject), but it won't stop me from making it.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Genesis 3:"And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."

Response

1- The fact of light being 'good' is only relevant to beings with eyes. Why would god think of light as 'good'. No this clearly shows that right from the start, the bible is written by men for men.[not women]. It is not the word of a god.

2- Light and dark cannot be 'separated'. In fact there is no such thing as 'dark', in the same way that there is no colour 'black'. Both dark&black are merely what we perceive when there is no light, to stimulate nerves. So god cannot by definition, do this thing, so it didn't happen and the Genesis is fraudulent and so to is god a hoax.

3- In fact, in the solar system, there is NO SUCH THING AS NIGHT, and any god worth worshipping should know that. Whereas stone aged man would not! The fact is that it is ALWAYS DAY, and you call it night only when you stand in the shadow of the Earth! Would you call it night, if a fat person sat on your face and blocked the light? [No that would be the end!]. Also, that's just the type of hocus pocus that stone aged man would believe...especially when there was a solar eclipse!

Griff...We still live in the dark ages...well some of us do. THINK!

I thought this was so good it had to come here too!

THE MYSTERY OF GOD

God is a tree without roots
A galloping horse without legs
An eagle, soaring without wings...

God is tasteless, formless and empty.
They flavour IT with bread and wine
Shape IT with a man and a cross
And fill IT, with mystery...

Griff...

I just need to point out, for no reason than my own nit-picky sanity, that the bible was not written by or for stone age peoples.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

A god as portrayed in most religions? I don't know. If they expanded my mind so I could understand the supposed ability of them to be all-powerful, perfectly good, and yet let children be raped and murdered screaming, then I might accept it.

However, if some guy showed me a room with all kinds of levers where I could stop time, play with people's minds and thoughts, re-design DNA, re-design even atoms and physics, create universes at will, etc., then I would reasonably conclude they were the creator of this universe (or at least were indistinguishible from something capable of it) but that would not be the kind of Holy, spiritual being that religions portray.

Any explaination that involves a bigger, smarter, older man will never do. If there ever were a physical being, 14 billion years would be a long time to live. The method of creation shows a free running process left to itself.

 

[Cosmo]

How about a message in the randomness of pi?

That would mean a Universe creator actually left a message in the fabric of the Universe.

(Moment of silence for Carl Sagan)

Yeah, that's why I like the 'message in the background radiation' idea. In both cases it would have to be really obvious though. Like, coded into PI as ASCII (showing temporal omnipresence), or written into the background radiation obviously as ancient Hebrew or Esperanto or something.

No good. Pi is an irrational number, meaning that it goes on for an infinite number of digits, selected pretty much at random. Because of its randomness and infinite length, ANY string of digits you would like to propose - no matter how long or unusual your string of digits is - MUST occur somewhere within Pi. Of course, you might have to go trillions and trillions of digits deep, but it'll be there.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

I like your 'rewriting physics' idea... It might be tricky to set that up without changing the way things work enough to make us pop out of existence though.

I'm sure an "omni-being" could handle that little glitch.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[ReligionStudent]

No good. Pi is an irrational number, meaning that it goes on for an infinite number of digits, selected pretty much at random. Because of its randomness and infinite length, ANY string of digits you would like to propose - no matter how long or unusual your string of digits is - MUST occur somewhere within Pi. Of course, you might have to go trillions and trillions of digits deep, but it'll be there.

I don't think it is possible to say MUST occur, but is highly likely to occur.

For some idea of this see http://pi.nersc.gov/ While this is still only representation of some of Pi, if even in that amount, some strings do not occur, I am willing to believe its only a probably thing, not a necessary.

For example "jamesrandi" does not appear in the first four billion digits of Pi

Also, it is impossible to find e in pi

 

[transferosome]

Hmm. If there is a formula which can work out any digit within PI then it's not, by definition, random. You could call it pseudo-random, perhaps.

To be impressive, a message would really have to start from the beginning of PI onwards.

 

[transferosome]

I'm sure an "omni-being" could handle that little glitch.

Cheers,
TGHO

It might effectively do more to confound those who use the anthropic principle as evidence for god than to prove the existence of god.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

No good. Pi is an irrational number, meaning that it goes on for an infinite number of digits, selected pretty much at random. Because of its randomness and infinite length, ANY string of digits you would like to propose - no matter how long or unusual your string of digits is - MUST occur somewhere within Pi. Of course, you might have to go trillions and trillions of digits deep, but it'll be there.

You wouldn't be the least bit shocked if pi started going into patterns... first 100 primes.... first 100 binary numbers... .first 100 fibonacci numbers... etc. then the pattern gets repeated... .followed by a vast list of 0s and 1s which then appear to be some alien universal mathematical language?

And then, you found this same pattern at the exact same point in other constant numbers?

 

[Cosmo]

I don't think it is possible to say MUST occur, but is highly likely to occur.

For some idea of this see http://pi.nersc.gov/ While this is still only representation of some of Pi, if even in that amount, some strings do not occur, I am willing to believe its only a probably thing, not a necessary.

For example "jamesrandi" does not appear in the first four billion digits of Pi

Also, it is impossible to find e in pi

Nor would we expect "jamesrandi" to occur within the numeric digits of Pi.

I'm not so sure I'm with you on this - if the string of digits is infinitely long and selected essentially at random, would we not expect to eventually see any selected pattern of digits? Can we get a ruling from a mathematician here?

Hmm. If there is a formula which can work out any digit within PI then it's not, by definition, random. You could call it pseudo-random, perhaps.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

You wouldn't be the least bit shocked if pi started going into patterns... first 100 primes.... first 100 binary numbers... .first 100 fibonacci numbers... etc. then the pattern gets repeated... .followed by a vast list of 0s and 1s which then appear to be some alien universal mathematical language?

And then, you found this same pattern at the exact same point in other constant numbers?

If I'm right about Pi's randomness (pending the ruling of a board mathematician and/or some Googling) then no, we would expect the exact thing you've described to occur at some point within ALL irrational numbers like Pi. And, if you go 'deep' enough into each of them, then we must be able to find a place where this occurs in each such constant.

 

[ReligionStudent]

I said we should expect it, but that it is still not definite. There is simply a high probability due to its length.

I also feel the definition of pi as random as problematic, maybe seemingly random is better. It isn't changing, its always going to be the same number, representative of the ratio of circumference of a circle to its diameter. Thus, it only appears random, because there are an infinite stream of numbers, but they always appear in the same set pattern.

 

[Cosmo]

I said we should expect it, but that it is still not definite. There is simply a high probability due to its length.

I also feel the definition of pi as random as problematic, maybe seemingly random is better. It isn't changing, its always going to be the same number, representative of the ratio of circumference of a circle to its diameter. Thus, it only appears random, because there are an infinite stream of numbers, but they always appear in the same set pattern.

After some Googling, I think you might be right.

The operative term here seems to be 'normal' number - that is, if Pi is a normal number then every possible digit string will occur at least once within Pi. As I understand these resources, Pi has not yet been proven to be a normal number but "all available evidence suggests that it is".

So, for now, I suppose we can conclude fairly safely that every possible digit string has at least a high probability of occurring somewhere within Pi, which I contend destroys any significance of us finding a 'pattern' of digits in pi. It is not evidence of a supreme being - just evidence of Pi's normalness.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Well In the Bible God makes the Sun Stand still in the heavens. If he could do that for a few hours I would be convinced. Of course I wouldn't know who's God did it, there might have to be some other heavenly sign to to clarify that it isn't Vishnu having a bit of a laugh.

What about solar and lunar eclipses as a sign of "cosmic level intelligence" at work? Its a clearly visible, heavenly, sign. They also cap the coincidences that made the universe what it is.

 

[Piscivore]

'What would you accept as proof of the existence of God'?

"Him" turning over all his powers to me.

What about solar and lunar eclipses as a sign of "cosmic level intelligence" at work?

What exactly is cosmically intelligent about one giant space rock moving between another giant space rock and a cohesive mass of burning hydrogen?

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

"Him" turning over all his powers to me.


What exactly is cosmically intelligent about one giant space rock moving between another giant space rock and a cohesive mass of burning hydrogen?

That despite the size of the sun and the moon, that they appear the same size. That they line up just right to put on a show with a near perfect fit. And that "the show" probably helped to influence observation, study, and measurement of those two bodies, and time itself.
I am not saying it is a sign (or that it isn't) but as signs go, blocking out the sun is pretty good.

 

[Beleth]

"Him" turning over all his powers to me.

Piscivore Almighty!

What exactly is cosmically intelligent about one giant space rock moving between another giant space rock and a cohesive mass of burning hydrogen?

Exactly. It's making the evidence fit the conclusion. If I were to make a list of things that would convince me of a Cosmic Intelligence, the existence of solar eclipses (and having the sun look about the same size as the moon) would not be on the short list.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Piscivore Almighty!


Exactly. It's making the evidence fit the conclusion. If I were to make a list of things that would convince me of a Cosmic Intelligence, the existence of solar eclipses (and having the sun look about the same size as the moon) would not be on the short list.

A 14 billion year old, self-running process would convince me. But the problem is, it is hard to give proof without throwing off the cosmic plan. If the truth was given to you directly, you would have a problem convincing everyone else. If it were given to everyone, there is the risk of losing control of the personal direction of ones life. For instance, those that look for signs, could see them everywhere without knowing which are the right ones.
Absolute knowledge of an afterlife, may cheapen this one.
If wishes/prays were (routinely) granted, one may spend too much of their life "rubbing the lamp" for the genie.
A self-running process would appear to be guided. A process would be unbiased, not good or evil, yet have universal influence. And there is no reason to really believe that a being that "designed" it all, would even still be alive after 14 billion years. A process would not need IT to be.