God is Plausible - Mathematical hypothesis leads to origin and a God.

e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
God is Plausible - Mathematical hypothesis leads to origin and a God.

God is plausible.

I am not a religious man in the evangelical sense. I will say however that even though there was a Big Bang there also was probably a Banger. To think the whole universe exploded as a spontaneous event from nothing is less believable then thinking you could spontaneously explode where you sit as you read this.

I have, since my early college days, debated with my thoughts and others the logical path to God. I started with what was broken or could be bent in our universe (ie time) and worked backwards to the concepts of infinity, pi and zero. In the 15 years or so I tried to negotiate the Big Bang, dark matter, time, pi, infinity and the irrationals of our usable math. My conclusion leads to something beyond the singularity event that is in fact conceptually God.

Any rational responder one wish to explore this?

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Ghost of Amityville
Theist
Ghost of Amityville's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Sounds plausible, but I

Sounds plausible, but I consider other arguments for the existence of God to be more persuasive and plausible than the cosmological argument, which appears to be what you are offering.

It's perfectly reasonable to speak of an existence other than the universe, although one has to qualify that that "existence" is entirely different than the traditional sense of existence.

I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.


thraxas
thraxas's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Greetings.   So to see if

Greetings.

 

So to see if I understand you correctly - you are asserting that "God" is plausible, or at least probable in some sense? Am I also correct in understanding that you partially base this on the idea of the big bang? [for clarity]

 The main problem with your idea about the big bang and this requiring a creator/big banger is that it employs the logical fallacy petitio principii or begging the question. This means that the premise of your argument is assumed implicity in your argument. This is a similar argument that some theists have espoused using a painting and a building. A painting must be painted by a painter and a building must be built by a builder. This logic only works for certain things and only because we know the source. For example, we can go see a construction site and watch painters create works of art. This premise of design/creator does not work for example: a cloud - a cloud does not imply a cloud designer or a cloud factory. Craggy rock outcroppings on a mountain do n ot imply that a person came along and chiseled them out. This logic is problematic as it is circular and applies to a limited number of things.

 

Turning to the first law of thermodynamics - matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed. This means that the total amount of matter and energy in the universe has ALWAYS been constant. This does not imply that there was "nothing" before the big bang. This means we can hypothesize that the universe existed in a different form completely, possibly as entirely energy.

 

You mention that it is unbelievable/seems improbable that there was a big bang from "nothing" (see point above). However, it is even more improbable to suggest that there is a superhuman creator. What is more improbable than that, surely the big bang is much more probable. Life an exceedingly improbable event is very improbable as well, yet we are here speaking - to argue that god is plausible because other things are also seemingly implausible is an argument from improbability that defeats itself. God is the the ultimate improbability.

 

Finally, if you accept the premise that everything has a creator, as you mention in who was the "big banger" - you also beg the logic problem of regression. Who created the creator, i.e. god? It does not make much sense to hypothesize something even more improbable to explain something that is already improbable.

 

 

If I missed anything let me know - or if you have any other points etc. ;] 

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson


Apokalipse
Apokalipse's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: I will say

e303 wrote:
I will say however that even though there was a Big Bang there also was probably a Banger.
Why? You haven't explained how you came to this conclusion.

Furthermore, you have made some underlying assumptions here which have not been scientifically tested and verified to be valid.

Namely, the idea that before the big bang, there was nothing (well, besides god, apparently).

 

e303 wrote:
To think the whole universe exploded as a spontaneous event from nothing is less believable then thinking you could spontaneously explode where you sit as you read this.
Yes it is.

But that's not relevant, since I don't think many people here believe there was nothing before the big bang.

 

Have you ever considered that the universe just is?


Ghost of Amityville
Theist
Ghost of Amityville's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
thraxas wrote: The main

thraxas wrote:

The main problem with your idea about the big bang and this requiring a creator/big banger is that it employs the logical fallacy petitio principii or begging the question. This means that the premise of your argument is assumed implicity in your argument. This is a similar argument that some theists have espoused using a painting and a building. A painting must be painted by a painter and a building must be built by a builder. This logic only works for certain things and only because we know the source. For example, we can go see a construction site and watch painters create works of art. This premise of design/creator does not work for example: a cloud - a cloud does not imply a cloud designer or a cloud factory. Craggy rock outcroppings on a mountain do n ot imply that a person came along and chiseled them out. This logic is problematic as it is circular and applies to a limited number of things.

 

But clouds and craggy rocks can be said to have a creator/designer. They're respectfully called the water cycle and the shifting of teutonic plates. It's questionable as to whether this object = creator logic only applies to a limited number of things, as you suggest. 

 

I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.


thraxas
thraxas's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
When I meant creator I was

When I meant creator I was referring to the intelligent design theory. Buildings and paintings have intelligent designers. This is the only real meaning of a creator in the religioius sense, something that intelligently and creatively designs. Certainly one cannot plausibly argue that clouds and craggy rocks are intelligently designed. I am assuming you just misunderstood what I meant. In this sense, intelligent creator only applies in the limited sense that Christians regard it.

 

By the way, its the tectonic plates not "teutonic" and probably some erosion for good measure on those craggy rocks. ;D no disrespect intended

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson


Ghost of Amityville
Theist
Ghost of Amityville's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Your response to my response

Your response to my response confounds me too a bit. I don't see how your idea of a real meaning of a creator in the religious sense is the way it really is. IOW, you're going to think me stupid probably, but I'm not seeing the distinction between the religious idea of a creator of the universe and the water cycle/tectonic (See, I got it right this time) plates creators of clouds/craggy rocks. Intelligence is the distinction, you say? The supposed creator of the universe is intelligent and the accepted creators of the clouds and craggy rocks are not?

edit: I think I understood you. It's just that I don't think I agree with you on your assumption that the "everything must have a creator" logic can be easily dismissed. You provided the examples of clouds and craggy rocks as evidence that the "everything must have a creator" logic is dismissible, and I responded by proving that clouds and craggy rocks do have creators in a sense. Therefore, they aren't really good enough evidence to dismiss the "everything must have a creator" logic. 

I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.


thraxas
thraxas's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
The problematic confusion

The problematic confusion comes from the abuse of the word creator by religion. Indeed creator in its literal sense means to make, to begin, to be the proximate cause. In this sense, everything we know has a "creator" that is an originating cause. Under this idea of a creator, the clouds and rocks are "created" by natural processes of the earth.

 

HOWEVER.. this idea is used by theists to mean something entirely different. Theists refer to a creator, meaning a god-being that intelligently creates plants, animals, rocks, clouds etc. In my original argument to the original poster I was referring to this theistic definition of things having a creator. To say that something is INTELLIGENTLY CREATED or DESIGNED is completely different than to say something was "created" by a natural process. Intelligent design requires a creative thoughtful intelligence, i.e. a human or other high functioning animal. Christians always refer to god in this way, that god is an intelligent superhuman creator. This is the idea of a creator that I was refuting.

 

Thus, there are things in our world that have intelligent designers such as paintings and bulidings, these things we know are created by other humans (i.e. intelligent designers/creators). We have factual proof this is so by going to a construction site, etc. However, we know that clouds and mountains were not created by an intelligent creationary force - but a natural cause as in tectonic plates. Theists attempt to use this begging the question fallacy to apply to the god creator. They use the example of a painting and a building, or a watch, and try to use the same idea for animals or the universe. There are no universe factories we can go view or even prove to exist, etc.

 

EDIT: Moreover, what I exactly mean is that it is illogical to conclude that-> A painting implies a painter, a watch implies a watchmaker. ad nauseum and THEREFORE... a universe implies a universe maker and clouds imply a cloud manufacturer. This is bad logic. It is attempting to assert the premise of intelligent design because it is present in known human examples to other examples where there are mere natural causes. 

 

Hope that made sense lol

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson


Ghost of Amityville
Theist
Ghost of Amityville's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm ... The argument from

Hmmm ... The argument from design for the existence of God appears persuasive to a degree. This is because I still am not seeing the whole distinction you're trying to make. Forgive me for being dense (Or maybe just for having a sincere disagreement). If natural processes prove that everything has a "creator" in a sense, then why can't the theistic concept of God equally be considered a part of one of those natural processes? You just said yourself, "In this sense, everything we know has a 'creator' that is an originating cause."  The universe is something we know. Could the universe be included in that "everything"?

I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.


thraxas
thraxas's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
The argument for design,

The argument for design, that is that a creative intelligence is a highly improbable and implausible theory. This is to say that I do not deny the possibility, but the possiblity is extremely low.

 

Merely to say that everything has a cause does not automatically imply that it was created by something intelligent.

The arguments you are specifically addressing were more specified for the exact idea the OP had. So let me give you a more general idea of what I mean-->

 

1) Creative intelligences (i.e. creators/designers) are the end product of a gradual process of evolution. Therefore, as such creative intelligences (i.e humans) necessarily arrive late in the universe due to this required gradual process of development. Thus, it is impossible for such a creative intelligence (i.e. a god) to be the creator of the universe if in fact they always arrive late.

 

2) God is the ultimate improbability. For example life is a very improbable event indeed requring precise timing, certain elements, etc. To postulate that this improbable event was created by an even more improbable event is quite ludicrous and brings you no closer to an answer. A god being so complex as to design a universe and also overcome the logical fallacy as above would need a TREMENDOUS explanation for which there is none. Taking this to an even more basic level, parsimony and Occam's razor claim that the simplest answer is the correct answer. This is proven time again in our universe. God is definitely not simple for many reasons and is likely the most complex and improbable answer.

 

 

*Note I specifically bring up the first point and mention that it is a logical improbability because even theist scholars (big time guys) admit that even their "God" cannot do things that are logically impossible.

 

EDIT - sorry one more thing! lol There is absolutely ZERO real scientific evidence proving any creation or intelligent design theory. This is another reason to decrease the probability of a creator god/intelligent designer.  

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Reply to replies

Hi everyone.

My first post was more "food for thought" than an argument. I do have an argument based on observation, reduction and some ability to move past emotional concepts that revolve around the existence of God and the existence of infinity.

I will say my personal conclusions are based in simple logic and a desire to explore #s and the more philosophical concepts of the laws of the universe vs needed feeling for my place in the universe or the salvation of my soul or yours.

There is some danger in what I am about to share as the concepts will at the very least push those who say God does not exist closer to confusion. The emotional position on this side of the fence i think runs just as high as the raving pious lunatics who take the judgmental position on your eternal damnation.

A lesson from history:

A guy name Pythagoras,Known as "the father of numbers", believed in the absoluteness of numbers, and could not accept the existence of irrational numbers. He could not disprove their existence through logic, but his beliefs would not accept the existence of irrational numbers and so, as legend had it, he had the discoverer of irrational numbers, Hippasus, drowned.

Lesson: The "rational" are often the most irrational.

My position will be spaced out over 5 or 6 parts including an equation and conclusion. This is to allow readers to track my thoughts from point A to points b c and d. As I am not certain this is the place for such debate, I will refrain from posting part one until I have an understanding of the proper location on this forum.

Any suggestions?

In the end, I hope to keep the debate at a level of personal ponderance vs divine conclusion to avoid the absolute of right or wrong because both positions of absolute are based more on feeling than on thought.

Thank you.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the Comments

Thanks for the comments btw. Smiling


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Hi

e303 wrote:

Hi everyone.

My first post was more "food for thought" than an argument. I do have an argument based on observation, reduction and some ability to move past emotional concepts that revolve around the existence of God and the existence of infinity.

I will say my personal conclusions are based in simple logic and a desire to explore #s and the more philosophical concepts of the laws of the universe vs needed feeling for my place in the universe or the salvation of my soul or yours.

There is some danger in what I am about to share as the concepts will at the very least push those who say God does not exist closer to confusion. The emotional position on this side of the fence i think runs just as high as the raving pious lunatics who take the judgmental position on your eternal damnation.

A lesson from history:

A guy name Pythagoras,Known as "the father of numbers", believed in the absoluteness of numbers, and could not accept the existence of irrational numbers. He could not disprove their existence through logic, but his beliefs would not accept the existence of irrational numbers and so, as legend had it, he had the discoverer of irrational numbers, Hippasus, drowned.

Lesson: The "rational" are often the most irrational.

My position will be spaced out over 5 or 6 parts including an equation and conclusion. This is to allow readers to track my thoughts from point A to points b c and d. As I am not certain this is the place for such debate, I will refrain from posting part one until I have an understanding of the proper location on this forum.

Any suggestions?

In the end, I hope to keep the debate at a level of personal ponderance vs divine conclusion to avoid the absolute of right or wrong because both positions of absolute are based more on feeling than on thought.

Thank you.

As for the big bang having a banger, I agree, as do ALL people who believe in the big bang. It's called gravity, which was the banger. Gravity pulled the matter in the universe into a singularity, to explode out.

 

I would like to know your equation, it will end up being a watchman equation, or similiar probably. It will be fun to see the "proof for god". 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Aquinas' first cause

Aquinas' first cause argument applied to the Big Bang. It's tempting. It does only justify deism, not theism. The problem I find is that we don't know whether it actually came from nothing or not. All I'm sure of is that the universe is expanding and that yes, there was a bang. Even if we are sure it came from nothing, which I'm not sure scientists are (I'm really not up to date on my physics - me not being a physicist and all) why would that need to suggest a God started it, there are a whole number of other explanations, ones that don't require a consciousness. It could be that all the matter in the universe contracted in on itself, crushed under so much pressure that all the molecules became hydrogen (the simplest atom having a weight of only 1). It could be that matter came through a wormhole. This is probably best for a scientist to answer, I am not one, I'm a philosopher who deals primarily with ethics and politics, this is not my terrain. The point is, I don't believe any of these theories except in speculation, there could've been any number of different causations of the Big Bang. The one I believe least of all is that some great superbeing started it. I do not know, nor do I claim to know, so I don't believe anything until I know, that is a rational scientific viewpoint is it not.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Aquinas' first cause argument applied to the Big Bang. It's tempting. It does only justify deism, not theism. The problem I find is that we don't know whether it actually came from nothing or not. All I'm sure of is that the universe is expanding and that yes, there was a bang. Even if we are sure it came from nothing, which I'm not sure scientists are (I'm really not up to date on my physics - me not being a physicist and all) why would that need to suggest a God started it, there are a whole number of other explanations, ones that don't require a consciousness. It could be that all the matter in the universe contracted in on itself, crushed under so much pressure that all the molecules became hydrogen (the simplest atom having a weight of only 1). It could be that matter came through a wormhole. This is probably best for a scientist to answer, I am not one, I'm a philosopher who deals primarily with ethics and politics, this is not my terrain. The point is, I don't believe any of these theories except in speculation, there could've been any number of different causations of the Big Bang. The one I believe least of all is that some great superbeing started it. I do not know, nor do I claim to know, so I don't believe anything until I know, that is a rational scientific viewpoint is it not.

Most scientists agree that the Big Bang is the result of gravity gathering more and more matter together, creating a massive singularity(By massive I do not mean big, a singularity is many times smaller then a photon, but it would have the mass of say, 185 billion galaxies) creating so much heat it begins to spin until it blows out basically. The matter in the singularity would not be hydrogen(It would be to hot to be any atom actually, it would not even be quark/gworks(These make up protons, and neutrons) would be able to hold their shape. It was after the Big Bang when matter cooled it was able to form atoms then stars.

 

Matter would of already existed, just gathered into a singularity. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
James Cizuz wrote: Jacob

James Cizuz wrote:
Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Aquinas' first cause argument applied to the Big Bang. It's tempting. It does only justify deism, not theism. The problem I find is that we don't know whether it actually came from nothing or not. All I'm sure of is that the universe is expanding and that yes, there was a bang. Even if we are sure it came from nothing, which I'm not sure scientists are (I'm really not up to date on my physics - me not being a physicist and all) why would that need to suggest a God started it, there are a whole number of other explanations, ones that don't require a consciousness. It could be that all the matter in the universe contracted in on itself, crushed under so much pressure that all the molecules became hydrogen (the simplest atom having a weight of only 1). It could be that matter came through a wormhole. This is probably best for a scientist to answer, I am not one, I'm a philosopher who deals primarily with ethics and politics, this is not my terrain. The point is, I don't believe any of these theories except in speculation, there could've been any number of different causations of the Big Bang. The one I believe least of all is that some great superbeing started it. I do not know, nor do I claim to know, so I don't believe anything until I know, that is a rational scientific viewpoint is it not.

Most scientists agree that the Big Bang is the result of gravity gathering more and more matter together, creating a massive singularity(By massive I do not mean big, a singularity is many times smaller then a photon, but it would have the mass of say, 185 billion galaxies) creating so much heat it begins to spin until it blows out basically. The matter in the singularity would not be hydrogen(It would be to hot to be any atom actually, it would not even be quark/gworks(These make up protons, and neutrons) would be able to hold their shape. It was after the Big Bang when matter cooled it was able to form atoms then stars.

 

Matter would of already existed, just gathered into a singularity. 

Like an uber black hole?


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
James Cizuz wrote:
Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Aquinas' first cause argument applied to the Big Bang. It's tempting. It does only justify deism, not theism. The problem I find is that we don't know whether it actually came from nothing or not. All I'm sure of is that the universe is expanding and that yes, there was a bang. Even if we are sure it came from nothing, which I'm not sure scientists are (I'm really not up to date on my physics - me not being a physicist and all) why would that need to suggest a God started it, there are a whole number of other explanations, ones that don't require a consciousness. It could be that all the matter in the universe contracted in on itself, crushed under so much pressure that all the molecules became hydrogen (the simplest atom having a weight of only 1). It could be that matter came through a wormhole. This is probably best for a scientist to answer, I am not one, I'm a philosopher who deals primarily with ethics and politics, this is not my terrain. The point is, I don't believe any of these theories except in speculation, there could've been any number of different causations of the Big Bang. The one I believe least of all is that some great superbeing started it. I do not know, nor do I claim to know, so I don't believe anything until I know, that is a rational scientific viewpoint is it not.

Most scientists agree that the Big Bang is the result of gravity gathering more and more matter together, creating a massive singularity(By massive I do not mean big, a singularity is many times smaller then a photon, but it would have the mass of say, 185 billion galaxies) creating so much heat it begins to spin until it blows out basically. The matter in the singularity would not be hydrogen(It would be to hot to be any atom actually, it would not even be quark/gworks(These make up protons, and neutrons) would be able to hold their shape. It was after the Big Bang when matter cooled it was able to form atoms then stars.

 

Matter would of already existed, just gathered into a singularity.

Like an uber black hole?

Well since uber = super... We already have super massive black holes we can observe that have the mass of several hundred stars. So, this would be more of a "super omg 1337 uber massive black hole". Actually I don't exactly know if there was a difference, most  of scientists don't refer to the singularity being a black hole, so it might of been similiar to a black hole. I'm guessing it was, though. Well all a black hole is, is when massive ammount of matter is together, and continues to contract in on itself until it reachs a critical point and falls in on itself into a singularity of infinite density. Of course it would not be infinite density, because no matter how small it colapses to it still has some volume. So yeah I guess you could say the big bang was the king of all known black holes. In all actuality the black holes we see now being shot in all directions may continue to collect matter around them, and matter they collect outside the universe until they reach the critical point like the big bang was, and create another universe. Or, gravity could be doing it's job slowing down the expansion and pulling all our matter back into the singularity, in a never ending sequence(unless matter is added, which could make the event more violent and escape gravity, which could add to other areas big bangs would be happening.)

 

Oh, anyone else mad this guy came here promising a formula to prove god exists, and has not posts it yet? 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Double post, delete this please.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: I started with

e303 wrote:

I started with what was broken or could be bent in our universe (ie time) and worked backwards to the concepts of infinity, pi and zero. In the 15 years or so I tried to negotiate the Big Bang, dark matter, time, pi, infinity and the irrationals of our usable math.

This sounds like utter bullshit to me. What do pi, zero, and and irrational numbers have to do with God?

e303 wrote:

A guy name Pythagoras,Known as "the father of numbers", believed in the absoluteness of numbers, and could not accept the existence of irrational numbers. He could not disprove their existence through logic, but his beliefs would not accept the existence of irrational numbers and so, as legend had it, he had the discoverer of irrational numbers, Hippasus, drowned.

Pythagorus was a mystic.

There are stories of the that the discoverer of irrational numbers drown at sea during a storm. There's no proof that Pythagorus actually ordered his murder.

e303 wrote:

Lesson: The "rational" are often the most irrational.

Everyone has irrational parts of them. Ever been in love?

e303 wrote:

My position will be spaced out over 5 or 6 parts including an equation and conclusion. This is to allow readers to track my thoughts from point A to points b c and d. As I am not certain this is the place for such debate, I will refrain from posting part one until I have an understanding of the proper location on this forum.
Any suggestions?

Just keep going. The mods will move the thread if that's needed.

Just to let you know, I have a MS in math. There are others here too who have studied/are studying math at the graduate level. Let me tell you, you have one strike already. The word irrational in math has a completely different meaning than the normal usage.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
James Cizuz wrote: Oh,

James Cizuz wrote:
Oh, anyone else mad this guy came here promising a formula to prove god exists, and has not posts it yet?

Yes. If he/she really knew math, he/she would know that all that matters is the proof.

Give it to us, if you have it.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Part A - The Argument for God

Got to www.dennis-hasley.com

This is part one.  It will only challenge the idea that the buden of proof is upon those who think their is a God vs those who think there is not.

Not only is it necessary to understand the nature of truth and the processes of induction, deduction and hypothesis, but it is also necessary to understand their relation to observations, generalizations and explanations and to understand the effects of probability of truth, to understand beliefs, leads, and open-mindedness. 

Be well.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Got to

e303 wrote:

Got to www.dennis-hasley.com

This is part one. It will only challenge the idea that the buden of proof is upon those who think their is a God vs those who think there is not.

Not only is it necessary to understand the nature of truth and the processes of induction, deduction and hypothesis, but it is also necessary to understand their relation to observations, generalizations and explanations and to understand the effects of probability of truth, to understand beliefs, leads, and open-mindedness.

Be well.

Oh look, he posts a website. A hit'n'run I call. The cute little video on the main page shows no understanding of any theory. It starts asserting god did it, god is dark energy, god is the balance etc etc.

 

It firsts states gravity pulls in matter, I agree. Then the matter eventually forms a singularity then a big bang. I agree. Then he states trillions of years from now all matter will be locked in black holes, and time and matter will never come together again. Problem with that is, gravity can move black holes, and black holes can come together recreating the big bang, over and over and over. He says time is finite... Well space and time co-exist, one can not exist without the other which is true. However space has always existed, which would mean so has time. No one has been able to show that time(had a begining) yet.

 

Oh, and dark energy is likely the cause of after effects of the big bang. Why dark energy continues to move faster and faster(Or has a constant speed of light, but the matter outside the dark energy is forcing it slower until the dark energy slowly regains it speed) has not been proven yet.

 

No matter what is unexplainable, the gap should never be filled with "god". 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Not the dark ages....Dark

Not the dark ages....

Dark matter and dark energy.  I agree Meta-time exist but the fact you don't wish to fill a void and name it means nothing but a choice.  Part A establishes only that infinity as we know it and the "ever expanding universe" is not quite what we thought it to be.

B C and D will at least say you have a radical idea and so do I. In the end I am only trying to say "Hey! there are things to explore beyond denial. Smiling 

Parts B & C will add more obsevational science to this debate.  BTW dark energy is a reality.  It is not fiction.  The universe will have a "big crunch" idea is dead the proof there is no God cannot be presented as truth in this spacetime.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: God is

e303 wrote:

God is plausible. 

...

Any rational responder one wish to explore this?

You can begin by saying 'what' precisely is plausible. Provide an ontology for your term. Only then can we place the term in a falsifiable hypothesis.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/god_is_an_incoherent_term 

Please provide a positive ontology, and please do not steal from naturalism.

Please also include me in your nobel prize acceptance speech if you are able to respond.

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
"What do pi, zero, and and

"What do pi, zero, and and irrational numbers have to do with God?"

I will get to that part in time but for now study what you will do with the idea of nothing in the universe but dark energy?   Where does time (t) fit in?

Play with this: rho+3P/c^2=0 in a finite universe mr wizard.

 

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
What is plausible.

Plausible means: apparently reasonable.

It is apparently reasonable to say a God may exist because you cannot escape the questions required to explain where matter came from. Yet one who has entertained the idea that a God may exist allows a list of growing evidence that the world and the universe are at the mercy of something not of this world. It is perhaps then more reasonable to say that "something" may point to a creator. This is a much better explanation than saying, "We and all things in the universe exist just because we do." 

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Plausible

e303 wrote:

Plausible means: apparently reasonable.

It is apparently reasonable to say a God may exist...

Stop.

To claim that 'god' is an existent requires that you provide an ontology for your theory.

Please read my prior post. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


thraxas
thraxas's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
I am sure with your

I am sure with your mathematical knowledge that you are aware of the first law of thermodynamics. Conservation of matter and energy. It is more plausible that energy became matter in a process before the big bang than the idea of a god. 

Have you heard of the 747 Gambit? God is the ultimate 747. Occams razor and parsimony compels the simplest explanation. God is the most complicated and improbable theory than one that the universe has always existed. The reason for this is multifold. For example, the problem of regression - who created the creator (god)? If y ou are a traditional theist then they say he was always there, which brings you right back to the original problem. 

The other problem is that a creative intelligence necessarily comes late in the universe as a process of gradual evolution. Thus iit cannot also be resposible for creating that same universe.

 

The whole problem with the god hypothesis is that it brings up more problems than it answers. I have no idea what god you espouse be it Yahweh or the pink unicorn, but there is no evidence for any supernatural force. I am open to the possibility, but the probability is tiny.

 

Think about this - if this god was omnipotent - apparently according to most theists and if he created the universe, then he surely must be nearly so. He must be controlling every atom, molecule, structure, every space-time constant, every sub-atomic particle, every quantum structure, and so on. He must be doing this constantly for all time since the universe's creation. This theory requires a MASSIVE explanation and is even more improbable than than suggesting that the universe has always existed and is not controlled by outside forces besides natural forces (i.e. gravity, etc.).

 The god hypothesis has so many more holes than I have merely just mentioned. I am trying to explain that the god hypothesis is a massively more complicated improbability than the universe just being. 

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I think he's implying a God

I think he's implying a God that created the universe.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
thraxas wrote: The god

thraxas wrote:

The god hypothesis has so many more holes than I have merely just mentioned.  

The biggest 'hole' would be that there cannot be a god hypothesis in the first place. Falsifiable hypotheses require coherent terms. You cannot make a reference beyond nature. All a 'god' claim can ever amount to is:


We dont' know.

Ergo.

Something completely unknown is responsible.

 And this amounts to reifying ignorance.

 

There is absolutely nothing to any theological cosmological argument other than an argument from ignorance. Point out a million problems in naturalistic accounts of cosmology, and you've still done nothing from a theological point of view, to bolster a 'god' argument.

 No cosmologist has all the answers.  We don't know. Let's not reifying our ignorance and pray to it. Let's just concede it.

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
irrational vs obtuse

In math is it better to be irrational or obtuse?

Umm yeah I knew irrational #s are not the same as people who act before they think...

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I think he's implying a God that created the universe.

 And I'm telling you that the term 'god' is incoherent.

All you can mean by the reference is something that cannot actually be a 'god'.

You can only refer to an anthropomorphic being. Or to an expression of ignorance.

 

In other wordsd: What's 'god'? What does he mean by 'god'. Can he provide an ontology for this term without stealing from naturalism?  

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I think you guys should

I think you guys should read "The God Theory" by Dr.Bernad Haisch

 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
To concede is to stop looking

Better to keep looking for answers rather than toss our hands up and exclaim, "There is nothing more to learn as I know God cannot exist."

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I think you guys should read "The God Theory" by Dr.Bernad Haisch

 

Oxymoron. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
todangst

todangst wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I think you guys should read "The God Theory" by Dr.Bernad Haisch

Oxymoron.

 

Pre-judgement.

 

 


thraxas
thraxas's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
This is the entire problem

This is the entire problem with theism. Its definition of god is an anthropomorphic entity which contradicts its own characteristics (omnipotence, omniscience - which are themselves internally contradictory).

 This is not equivalent to throwing up ones hands. You cannot start an actual scientific experiment without a hypothesis. And I do believe that we can throw up our hands and stop looking for some very good reasons. The lack of a positive ontology for god is one - see the articles linked, and the brilliant moderator who has posted in this discussion as well.

Should we throw up our hands as well and stop looking for evidence of the microscopic invisible orbiting teapot and the invisible pink unicorn? Absolutely. 

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson


thraxas
thraxas's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
God Hypothesis is an

God Hypothesis is an oxymoron because it lacks a positive ontology. It is not a falsifiable hypothesis. This is not pre-judgment, it is a judgment after extensive thought.

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
todangst wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I think you guys should read "The God Theory" by Dr.Bernad Haisch

Oxymoron.

 

Pre-judgement.

 

I'm refering only to the title.  Call that judging a book by a cover if you like, but I'm not actually commenting on a book I've never read, just on the title.  

Can you encapsulate the key argument? 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
thraxas wrote: God

thraxas wrote:
God Hypothesis is an oxymoron because it lacks a positive ontology. It is not a falsifiable hypothesis. This is not pre-judgment, it is a judgment after extensive thought.

 

True that.

My personal bugaboo is that the term 'positive ontology' is redundant... a set of negative definitions with a universe of discourse would provide a 'positive ontology' as well, whereas a purely negative description provides no ontology at all, so so to me, all we need is the term 'ontology'....

 But I know precisely why you use the term, and its utility in this conversation, so... um... there's no reason for me to post this.... I should delete it.... um... 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
todangst

todangst wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
todangst wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I think you guys should read "The God Theory" by Dr.Bernad Haisch

Oxymoron.

 

Pre-judgement.

I'm refering only to the title. Call that judging a book by a cover if you like, but I'm not actually commenting on a book I've never read, just on the title.

Can you encapsulate the key argument?

 

I was being a smart-ass.

 

Anyway, from the cover flap

 

Bernard Haisch proposes, that science will explain God and God will explain science. Consciousness is no mere epiphenomenon of the brain: it is our connection to God, the source of all consciousness. Ultimiatly it is consciousness that creates matter and not vice versa. New discoveries in physics point to a background sea of quantum light underlying the universe. The God Theory offers a worldview that incorporates cutting-edge science and ancient mystical knowledge. This is nothing less that a revolution in our understanding.

 

Now you can judge a book by it's description  Laughing

If you have any questions, I've read the book, and have it handy. 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Specification of a conceptualization of God

Well if you were to to ask what is God.  God is perhaps a a type of energy that acts and interacts with the physical and metaphysical universe in ways we don't yet fully understand nor do we know what forces that energy posesses.

We do know dark energy does exist and it makes up about 70% of the universe. We do not know if there is a relationship or any shared physical properties of dark energy and God or if they are in fact one and the same.

The world is still mostly round however...

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
todangst wrote:

I'm refering only to the title. Call that judging a book by a cover if you like, but I'm not actually commenting on a book I've never read, just on the title.

Can you encapsulate the key argument?

 

I was being a smart-ass.

That you were. And you've earned 'smart ass' rights, it's rare that a theist fits in our site as well as you do....  

 

Quote:

Anyway, from the cover flap

 Bernard Haisch proposes, that science will explain God and God will explain science. Consciousness is no mere epiphenomenon of the brain: it is our connection to God, the source of all consciousness. Ultimiatly it is consciousness that creates matter and not vice versa. New discoveries in physics point to a background sea of quantum light underlying the universe. The God Theory offers a worldview that incorporates cutting-edge science and ancient mystical knowledge. This is nothing less that a revolution in our understanding.

 Now you can judge a book by it's description Laughing.

If you have any questions, I've read the book, and have it handy.

Ok, not sure if he's really provoked a revolution in thought, seems like he's beginning by arguing that sentience is required to collapse a wave function. So he's trying to build from that that matter only exists because we're here to see it?

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Well if you

e303 wrote:

Well if you were to to ask what is God. God is perhaps a a type of energy

Energy is matter, matter is energy. Both are part of the natural world. To say that 'god' is energy is to say that god is a natural entity. You've stolen from materialism, and you've left theism altogether for pantheism.

Quote:
 

 that acts and interacts with the physical and metaphysical universe in ways we don't yet fully understand nor do we know what forces that energy posesses.

So in other words, you don't know what 'god' is nor do you know how 'god' works.

So, 'god' either equals:

something utterly material and therefore not god at all.

Or

"a mystery'

 

Quote:
 

We do know dark energy does exist and it makes up about 70% of the universe.

i.e. we don't know what other things are either... 

If all you can say is "I don't know what god is" then what sense is there to saying its plausible that god created the universe?

All you're saying is 'I don't know what created the universe"

And of course, it's entirely plausible that you don't know what created the universe... in fact I'm fairly certain of that...

Same for me... 

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I simply don't discount the

I simply don't discount the possibility of a God. Without evidence to support spontaneous creation, I must lean toward looking for kind of knowledge and discovery that can at least bring to the fold many questions and a few answers vs the dark ages of "absolute" knowledge where a God cannot exist. A position that seems to have little value. I think a rational and educated person such as yourself can understand that.

To disqualify a God without proof and to moderate the message is simply reinventing a religion based on a personal belief. To defend that position in a way that gathers others into the same school of thought creates a kind of church.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
todangst

todangst wrote:

 

 

Quote:

Anyway, from the cover flap

Bernard Haisch proposes, that science will explain God and God will explain science. Consciousness is no mere epiphenomenon of the brain: it is our connection to God, the source of all consciousness. Ultimiatly it is consciousness that creates matter and not vice versa. New discoveries in physics point to a background sea of quantum light underlying the universe. The God Theory offers a worldview that incorporates cutting-edge science and ancient mystical knowledge. This is nothing less that a revolution in our understanding.

Now you can judge a book by it's description Laughing.

If you have any questions, I've read the book, and have it handy.

Ok, not sure if he's really provoked a revolution in thought, seems like he's beginning by arguing that sentience is required to collapse a wave function. So he's trying to build from that that matter only exists because we're here to see it?

 

 

 

 

He  argues that the physical world are merely ideas created by a spirtual consciousness. Kind of like a projector. The white light has infinite potiental, but once a slide is inserted, it's 'addition by subtraction'

 

Another argument is that our brain is a fliter in an 'infinite sea of consciousness'. He cites people doing amazing feats such as memorizing books after reading them once, someone reciting pi to 22,514 places etc.. to show that the brain may have infinite potiental.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote:I simply don't

e303 wrote:

I simply don't discount the possibility of a God.


But the very point I'm making to you is that you can't even know what your counting on or discounting in the first place. The term "god' is incoherent.

Quote:

Without evidence to support spontaneous creation

Without evidence? There are ex nihilo accounts (spontaneous accounts) from physics:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

Look at the work of Edward Tryon, near the bottom.

Quote:

, I must lean toward looking for kind of knowledge and discovery that can at least bring to the fold many questions and a few answers vs the dark ages of "absolute" knowledge where a God cannot exist. A position that seems to have little value. I think a rational and educated person such as yourself can understand that.

To disqualify a God without proof and to moderate the message is simply reinventing a religion based on a personal belief.

I'm not disqualifying your 'god'. Instead, I'm showing you that you can't actually be making a coherent reference in the first place.

I am asking you to tell me what you thnk you mean when you say 'god'. So far, you've said:

a type of energy.

Which is natural. And therefore not your 'god'

and

"a mystery"

Which leaves you saying "I don't know what created the universe"

Which again, is true, but not likely the goal you set out to accomplish.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
todangst wrote:

Ok, not sure if he's really provoked a revolution in thought, seems like he's beginning by arguing that sentience is required to collapse a wave function. So he's trying to build from that that matter only exists because we're here to see it?

 

He argues that the physical world are merely ideas created by a spirtual consciousness. Kind of like a projector. The white light has infinite potiental, but once a slide is inserted, it's 'addition by subtraction'

Not sure how he can get his first hypothesis off the ground , i.e. begin with consciousness, devoid of physicality.

Quote:

Another argument is that our brain is a fliter in an 'infinite sea of consciousness'. He cites people doing amazing feats such as memorizing books after reading them once, someone reciting pi to 22,514 places etc.. to show that the brain may have infinite potiental.

I'm not sure how this leads to infinite potential, sounds like an argument from wonder. 

Anyway thanks for sharing, and if one of his ideas applies here or elsewhere, please try to use it!

Thanks again. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Plausible

e303 wrote:

Plausible means: apparently reasonable.

It is apparently reasonable to say a God may exist because you cannot escape the questions required to explain where matter came from. Yet one who has entertained the idea that a God may exist allows a list of growing evidence that the world and the universe are at the mercy of something not of this world. It is perhaps then more reasonable to say that "something" may point to a creator. This is a much better explanation than saying, "We and all things in the universe exist just because we do."

Matter does not need a creator. It can not be created infact. Why do you ignore that?  No gap no matter how big should ever be filled with god, it could easily be filled with magic pixies, you just want god to be real, and when science can't explain it, it must be god!

 

e303 wrote:

"What do pi, zero, and and irrational numbers have to do with God?"

I will get to that part in time but for now study what you will do with the idea of nothing in the universe but dark energy? Where does time (t) fit in?

Play with this: rho+3P/c^2=0 in a finite universe mr wizard.

 

The observable matter of this universe is finite, however space does not end. If matter can not be created nor destroyed, and space does not end, matter would not only be in one place, it would be all accross. Same with energy. Dark energy is energy, and will eventually convert back into matter. As will matter convert to energy.

 

That formula would only work if matter was finite, to bad it's not eh? 

 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I think he's implying a God that created the universe.

 

I stopped.

And I lol'd.

 

You often surprise and delight me, Pineapple. 


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Better to keep

e303 wrote:
Better to keep looking for answers rather than toss our hands up and exclaim, "There is nothing more to learn as I know God cannot exist."

 

Better to continue to search for answers than toss up our collective hands and exclaim, "God did it!"