Rational proof for the existence of God - why all of you should be theists [kill em with kindness]

Sjoerd
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-11-02
User is offlineOffline
Rational proof for the existence of God - why all of you should be theists [kill em with kindness]

Hello everyone,

Let me introduce myself: I am Sjoerd, 27 years old, from the Netherlands; I am a scientist (post-doc in bioinformatics), and I am a theist. I noticed your advertisements at Debating Christianity&Religion. I found your advertisements a bit smug and arrogant looking, but now that I am here, it seems that you are actually not that bad Smiling Still, here is a smug and perhaps a bit arrogant attempt of my own to prove the existence of God by rational argument.  I posted the same on DC&R and I found the atheists' criticism there a bit unconvincing, so perhaps some people here have more arguments. So let's get started...

I will argue for the existence of God, providing a definition of "existence" and of "God". I believe that my logic is sound, although any atheist (or anyone else) is encouraged to shoot at it. Still, I doubt that it will make many converts for theism, because one can disagree about my definitions of "existence" and "God", and I think that atheists will generally choose to reject these definitions.

So I will restate the title of my post as "Rational proof of the existence of God, given a particular definition of "existence" and "God": Why all of you who accept these definitions should be theists".
I also apologize for the length of the post, but I want to be as precise as possible, to prevent misunderstandings. Of course, I may not have been precise enough, if so, please point it out.

I will define "existence" in the sense properties and information. If you define X as a set of properties, and you find an object Y that contains all the information to fully represent these properties, then X exists as Y. Or to state it simpler, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If you could build a mechanical or electronic model that describes a duck to the finest detail, from the overall shape and behavior via the detailed texture of the feathers down to the enzymes and electronic potentials of the duck cells, then, by all means, this model would be a duck. If you reject this definition of "existence", insisting that there is some special quality that makes something real or not real, in other words, if you believe in things like philosophical zombies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie), I will gladly debate this in another thread.

I will define God as being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, a vanilla theist definition of God. I will not argue for sentience or benevolence, which are IMO somewhat anthropomorphic properties not required for theism in general.
Omnipresence means that God is present in every location of the universe, and omniscience means that God has full knowledge of every particle in the universe, i.e. all the information concerning these particles is contained in God, anyplace anytime. The one entity that fulfills this requirement is the universe itself: clearly it is present in every location and it contains the full information of its contents. According to the above definition of existence, this means that as far as omniscience and omnipresence are concerned, God exists as the universe: either God is the universe, or the universe is a subset of God. In a metaphoric sense, the universe is a dream inside God's head.
Omnipotence means that God has full control over the universe, that there are no limits to what God can let the universe be. The universe itself, as we perceive it, does not fulfil this requirement: it is governed by causality, by fundamental laws of physics, by fundamental constants of physics, and by the initial conditions during its origin. Together all these things define the universe: if you know all the fundamental laws and constants and the initial conditions, you could compute the entire state of the universe for any desired point in time. At least, this is what classical physics teaches. With the advent of quantum mechanics, this has become a bit more blurry: according to one interpretation, multiple states are present simultaneously until the universe is forced to take one state or the other, in which case one of them is chosen at random, as if dice were thrown. Einstein didn't believe in this and stated "God doesn't play dice", but it doesn't matter: in one case, if Einstein is right, the universe is fully controlled by causality, the fundamental laws and constants of physics and the initial conditions at the origin ("the Big Bang&quotEye-wink. In the other case, the universe would be controlled by all of these mechanisms plus a random generator, a dice-throwing mechanism.
The universe plus all of these laws and mechanisms, plus whatever made them be exactly the way they are and not differently, together form an entity that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Therefore, it fulfills all of the criteria for God.

I consider this God definition to be theist, not deist. The deist God is usually represented as a watchmaker who designed the laws and the initial conditions and left it alone afterwards, but this is hard to reconcile with God being (a superset of) the universe, in past, present and future. God has a very direct influence on your daily life, everyone's life: if God wanted to make you hear a voice coming from a burning bush, all he would need to do is to change some initial conditions or constants of the universe, and the interaction between the bush and your mental state and perhaps some mushrooms that God made you eat will make you hear that voice. God would know that this would follow, because he can determine everything that will happen based on the initial conditions, laws, etc.
Of course, this is just a story: since God is omniscient, he has been knowing the things he wants to happen and the necessary conditions to make them happen all along, and he never implemented any other conditions that would need changing. Everything is God's will. If he didn't want it to happen, he would have made the universe so that it didn't. Actually, to say that God has a direct influence on your life is a gross understatement: he *defines* your daily life. If he wanted anything else to happen to you, he would.

If you find this argument objectionable, remember how I defined God: as the universe with all its laws and constants plus whatever defined their values. So if you are a determinist atheist, it seems to me that you must agree with me, although you may object to calling it "God". Still, in my opinion it fits quite nicely as a God concept. Humans have defined gods to be mysterious forces that influence their daily lives: as I have argued, God defines our daily lives, and it is certainly a mystery what the ultimate origin of the universe is, and why the fundamental laws and constants are the way they are. Also, science will forever be unable to solve this mystery. Of course, we can do research on the Big Bang and fundamental constants and try to explain them. We can doubt if the Big Bang is truly the ultimate cause, and if the laws and constants that we know are truly fundamental, and therefore we should never be content with the answer "because God made it so". However, if you do find the cause of the Big Bang, all you have proven is that the Big Bang wasn't the ultimate cause after all, but that there is some deeper cause. That deeper cause that you just discovered might be the ultimate cause, but again you don't know. You can perhaps prove that Planck's constant isn't fundamental at all and can be derived from some deeper fundamental constant, but then again you have only shifted the problem. The universe, its ultimate cause and the truly fundamental constants remain something elusive and mysterious. And it determines *everything*. Whether or not you call it God, it is up to you. I do.


Questions for debate:

- Are these proper and/or meaningful definitions of "existence" and "God"?
- Given these definitions, is this a valid proof of the existence of God?
- Is this definition of God compatible with the Abrahamic God?


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Sjoerd wrote:- Are these

Sjoerd wrote:


- Are these proper and/or meaningful definitions of "existence" and "God"?

Existance sure im fine with that defination 

God not so fine but i'll get onto that

 

Sjoerd wrote:

- Given these definitions, is this a valid proof of the existence of God?

To me all you have said is the universe exists. If you are saying to you the unverse with all its varies rules is god then hey thats cool I think it fits your defination. But is that what god really is? Im inclinde to say no although im not sure why but i shall explain. Expessially for the "popular" notions of what god is i don't think it fits. Another question is does anything else fit that defenation? Say in 1 billion years time we can create a wirless network that covers the unverse and is taped into everysingle thing including all the things "god" can do and is all controled by some AI that knows every particle of the universe... is the AI god? Yes its a little spaced out but say such a thing existed no matter how unlikely would it infact be god? To me it seems with your defination you have to say yes. It is everywhere, it knows everything and and has full control. indeed it is a "mechancal god" if you would permit the term. I find this problematic, god cannot be man made can it? I may of missed some of your post or miss read, but unless you included creation of the unverse as a must somewhere it appears god can indeed be man made. This is what i think the problem with your defination of god is. I know creation isn't strictly something all god do. While i don't know exactly what is wrong with your defination of god but I think something must be off if god can be a computer under it.  Of course even if this were to exist and you did define it as god that would just mean that there are two gods both controling the exact same things exact the AI would have more power as it can change gods work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sjoerd wrote:

- Is this definition of God compatible with the Abrahamic God?

 

Yeah if it controls anything then sure it can fit but then again it would of fit if earth had turmed out full of sharks with legs. But i have already made my sorta objection.

 

I just think you defination is wrong, while i don't know exactly what is wrong with it i refuse to believe that god can be man made. Then again I have never been one for rational stuff so meh. But could god be a machine if we ever advanced as a speies that far?

 

P.S. sorry if i missed anything that makes all of this a waste of time.... oh and sorry if its a waste of time without you needing to say anything

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There can be no unified

There can be no unified entity anywhere near the scale of the Universe which 'knows' the state of all its constituents at any instant, due to the limitations of relativity and light speed. Quantum effects further obscure this, but even without Quantum Theory, chaotic interactions also make total knowledge of the course of events impossible.

And omnipotence is even less applicable, since it is tightly bound to the laws of physics which are the logical consequences of the very basic properties of the most elementary particles, which can only occupy an infinitesimal part of the set of all 'conceivable' universes, which itself is a tiny subset of all actual possible sets of Universe histories. There is not by enormous orders of magnitude enough information content in something like the Big Bang singularity to determine the detailed form of the Universe, let alone the sequence of events which play out in it.

So the Universe is neither a unitary entity nor an omniscient or omnipotent one, so it doesn't remotely qualify in any meaningful sense as a stand-in for what any major theistic religion mean by 'God'.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
This reads like a fusion of

This reads like a fusion of pantheism and Christianity that tries to make the former seem more holy and the latter make sense.

It fails on both counts.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10340
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I would weigh in on the

I would weigh in on the omnipotence, but Bob covered it. Still I must ask: How can a being have the ability to do anything when said being is constrained from doing so by natural law? If god cannot make an object that goes faster than light, or a star that never burns out, how is the god you believe in omnipotent?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ok, so there is a super

Ok, so there is a super brain with no physical brain, with no neurons or cerebellum and has a location that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time?

And your invisible friend claim is different than all others in human history how?

Maybe you merely like the idea of a super hero. Just like the ancient Egyptians liked the idea of the sun being a thinking being that was their super hero? Maybe?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi Sjoerd, welcome to the

Hi Sjoerd, welcome to the forum.

You strike me as some sort of a philosophical pantheist. Is this correct?

I am pretty much in agreement with you, but as you already predicted yourself, I object to calling it 'God.' Well, you can call it God if you want, but I find it to be pointless and needlessly complicated. I don't understand why you feel the need to 'invent' another 'God' when there are already so many competing beliefs, doctrines, worldviews, and definitions. Why not call it a "frindle?"  Two of the most prevalent ideas of God is that God is an "intelligence" and that God is an unknown. The universe does not fit either of these criterion. True, currently, the origin of the universe is a mystery, but it is not a mystery in the same sense that most Gods are. The typical theist's God is supernatural, so it is not merely something that we don't understand, but something that we can't understand, by definition. It is supposed to be something that is beyond human comprehension. 

I also find your application of your definition of God, "omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent," rather silly. In summary, you merely explained that the universe was omnipotent because the universe could do anything that the universe could do, that it 'knew' everything in the universe since it is the universe, and that it was everywhere in the universe since the universe is everywhere in the universe. Since you took issue with benevolence and sentience partly due to their anthropomorphic natures, don't you also have problems with the three omni characteristics you presented and the manner in which you presented them? Omnipotence is usually attributed to an intelligent entity that can "do" anything. Similarly, omniscience is "know" everything, and omnipresence is "be" everywhere. See, every God trait is stolen from naturalism and anthropomorphized to a certain extent, including these. The way you have defined these omni traits are not in the spirit of how they are typically defined. So, I can't say that your argument is invalid, but it feels like you're just playing word games. You've simply picked out a ridiculously vague and broad definition, and interpreted it and characteristics of the universe to make it fit. 

 

Sjoerd wrote:
Also, science will forever be unable to solve this mystery.

I don't think you can know that.

Sjoerd wrote:
- Is this definition of God compatible with the Abrahamic God?

Certainly not. The universe is not intelligent. It is not benevolent. It is not jealous, merciful, wrathful, loving, etc.  

You are pretty much an atheist. I am pretty much a theist, if believing your 'God' makes me a theist. It's mostly semantics at this point.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum.Sjoerd

Welcome to the forum.

Sjoerd wrote:

...I defined God: as the universe with all its laws and constants plus whatever defined their values...

- Are these proper and/or meaningful definitions of "existence" and "God"?

- Given these definitions, is this a valid proof of the existence of God?

This is just pure equivocation, really. Why does one need to call such a thing, "god" when "universe" will suffice.

Sjoerd wrote:

- Is this definition of God compatible with the Abrahamic God?

This particular "god" does not have seem to have a particular personification, so it would be difficult to have any meaningful understanding its wrath, judgment, love, etc...

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm. I read blah blah

Hmmm. I read blah blah blah... uncaused causality. Forcing something to conform to the standards of being axiomatic doesn't qualify as proof of being axiomatic. It would need to be evident.

For such an unlimited god, you certainly have put it into a nice tight circular box.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, I know this definition

Yeah, I know this definition and I can in some sense agree with that, if I leave out a lot of details. This is why I understand theism rather as WORSHIPPING any particular god, which is well recognizable. There are theistic types walking around, full of devotion to the god, diminishing themselves, thinking that it will make the god more glorious. They're also very emotional.

And similarly, I can well imagine a scientific method of invocating God (or the universe) to gather an energy for various useful projects, like healing, building, or transportation. All that without climbing into God's imaginary ass.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Yeah, I know

Luminon wrote:

Yeah, I know this definition and I can in some sense agree with that, if I leave out a lot of details. This is why I understand theism rather as WORSHIPPING any particular god, which is well recognizable. There are theistic types walking around, full of devotion to the god, diminishing themselves, thinking that it will make the god more glorious. They're also very emotional.

And similarly, I can well imagine a scientific method of invocating God (or the universe) to gather an energy for various useful projects, like healing, building, or transportation. All that without climbing into God's imaginary ass.

This is WHY I think the word "atheist" should not be limited to god belief. It should be synonymous with skepticism of any naked assertion.

The energy of nature, both potential and kinetic, are no more cognitive than the turd I dump in my toilet. There is no reason to degrade the natural psychological "sense of awe" to the comic book word "god" which has no basis in reality.

Cognition is not a precondition to reality, it is an emergent property. Nature is nature, it is not a god. "god" is nothing but an anthropromorphic tribalistic mythological word created at time of human ignorance. Instead of trying to repackage a bad word, lets leave it in the garbage can where it belongs and move on.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


thoughtcounts-Z
Posts: 15
Joined: 2009-11-04
User is offlineOffline
Sjoerd wrote:- Are these

Sjoerd wrote:
- Are these proper and/or meaningful definitions of "existence" and "God"?

I don't think your definition of God is a coherent one. One quibble is this: how can something be "omniscient" without being "sentient"? Perhaps I use sentient in a slightly different sense than you do. But it seems to me that one cannot be said to "know" anything without the ability to perceive. The way you've defined your universe-God, it seems like God is all the knowledge ever, not that God possesses all the knowledge ever. As though God is some enormous database. 

Additionally, I think you are being rather optimistic with your invocation of "quantum mechanics." (Please forgive me, but as a physicist I find these lines of argumentation particularly tedious.) Quantum mechanics is still a set of physical laws. It does not allow literally everything to happen. Yes, it's much more permissive than classical physics, but this is hardly what I would describe as "omnipotent." Unless you are arguing that your universe-God simply doesn't wish to break its physical laws, which I think would go against your desire not to anthropomorphize.

My biggest complaint is that your definition of God is boring. I too feel a sense of awe when I look at pictures from Hubble, and whatnot. But to call that God? It just seems unnecessary. It's already an amazing thing. To superimpose these random ideas of "omnipotence" and "omni" various other things...why? Why even start doing that?

Sjoerd wrote:
- Given these definitions, is this a valid proof of the existence of God?

Well, it's pretty hard to argue that the universe doesn't exist. So if you somehow manage to define the universe as God, I guess so...

Sjoerd wrote:
- Is this definition of God compatible with the Abrahamic God?

I don't think so. Pretty sure the Abrahamic God comes with some particular Judeo-Christian assumptions about what God is like. Unless you mean something completely different by Abrahamic God.

You can call me Z.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I also see no logical

I also see no logical necessity that any assumed Creator God must have any omni- attributes, or even must be 'infinite' in any sense. This also goes along with the common automatic but unjustified assumptions that God must be 'perfect', or even 'Good', or particularly interested in us, or what we do.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Philophile
Posts: 2
Joined: 2009-11-04
User is offlineOffline
In my opinion

"I will not argue for sentience or benevolence, which are IMO somewhat anthropomorphic properties not required for theism in general." Though you won't argue for it the entire post assumed sentience. Furthermore the sentience and benevolance of God are the corner stones of any theist belief, if you don't have sentience and benevolance you're not talking about God, you're talking about causing events without the ability to cause them.


Waiting for Oblivion
Waiting for Oblivion's picture
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Congratulations! You just

Congratulations! You just gave us a very verbose definition of pantheism. Can you now give us the arguments for believing in it?


Sjoerd
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-11-02
User is offlineOffline
Well, I am very pleased

Well, I am very pleased about the amount of rational response here! I will now answer your replies as good as I can...


Sjoerd
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-11-02
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:But is that what

Tapey wrote:

But is that what god really is? Im inclinde to say no although im not sure why but i shall explain. Expessially for the "popular" notions of what god is i don't think it fits.

Well, we can disagree on that one... most people (theists and atheists alike) can only think of God in terms of a big bearded man in the sky. Those who think a bit deeper usually reject this concept of God though. It is clear that an omnipotent/scient being doesn't have human emotions and is totally beyond good and evil by any human concept.

Tapey wrote:

Another question is does anything else fit that defenation? Say in 1 billion years time we can create a wirless network that covers the unverse and is taped into everysingle thing including all the things "god" can do and is all controled by some AI that knows every particle of the universe... is the AI god? />

Such a universe AI would not be God, because it would still be bound by the laws of the universe, and wouldn't have any knowledge of anything that happened before it was built.

BobSpence1 wrote:
There can be no unified entity anywhere near the scale of the Universe which 'knows' the state of all its constituents at any instant, due to the limitations of relativity and light speed. Quantum effects further obscure this, but even without Quantum Theory, chaotic interactions also make total knowledge of the course of events impossible.

Vastet wrote:
I would weigh in on the omnipotence, but Bob covered it. Still I must ask: How can a being have the ability to do anything when said being is constrained from doing so by natural law? If god cannot make an object that goes faster than light, or a star that never burns out, how is the god you believe in omnipotent?

I think you are misunderstanding me. The World of Warcraft universe is bound by laws, about how fast things can travel, etc. Therefore, there can be no omniscient thing or being inside WoW. Nevertheless, the WoW servers, databases and source code are omnipotent and omniscient with regard to the WoW universe.

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is not by enormous orders of magnitude enough information content in something like the Big Bang singularity to determine the detailed form of the Universe, let alone the sequence of events which play out in it.
If not the Big Bang and the laws of nature, what else did determine this form and the sequence of events? Are you claiming that determinism is false?


Sjoerd
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-11-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:This reads

jcgadfly wrote:

This reads like a fusion of pantheism and Christianity that tries to make the former seem more holy and the latter make sense.

It fails on both counts.

 

You are making a claim without providing any reasoning or evidence in support. Please elaborate.

 

Waiting for Oblivion wrote:

Congratulations! You just gave us a very verbose definition of pantheism. Can you now give us the arguments for believing in it?

 

The correct term is panentheism, not pantheism. And the arguments for believing in it are the same as for any other abstract concept, like freedom, justice or pi: because it is logically consistent and gives us the means to talk about things.


Sjoerd
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-11-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ok, so there

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, so there is a super brain with no physical brain, with no neurons or cerebellum and has a location that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time?

That is the weirdest description of the universe that I ever heard... but I guess you could describe it that way.

These are your words, though, not mine.


Brian37 wrote:

And your invisible friend claim is different than all others in human history how?

Maybe you merely like the idea of a super hero. Just like the ancient Egyptians liked the idea of the sun being a thinking being that was their super hero? Maybe?

You are committing an "ad hominem" logical fallacy here. Please provide criticism that is rational.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sjoerd wrote:BobSpence1

Sjoerd wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
There can be no unified entity anywhere near the scale of the Universe which 'knows' the state of all its constituents at any instant, due to the limitations of relativity and light speed. Quantum effects further obscure this, but even without Quantum Theory, chaotic interactions also make total knowledge of the course of events impossible.

Vastet wrote:
I would weigh in on the omnipotence, but Bob covered it. Still I must ask: How can a being have the ability to do anything when said being is constrained from doing so by natural law? If god cannot make an object that goes faster than light, or a star that never burns out, how is the god you believe in omnipotent?

I think you are misunderstanding me. The World of Warcraft universe is bound by laws, about how fast things can travel, etc. Therefore, there can be no omniscient thing or being inside WoW. Nevertheless, the WoW servers, databases and source code are omnipotent and omniscient with regard to the WoW universe.

But that doesn't prove there is anything equivalent to that with respect to our universe, and anyway, you are claiming this omniscient entity is the Universe itself, and it is impossible for the Universe to form such an entity. 

You have to make a whole lot of assumptions to make any such entity possible 'outside' the Universe, and that it somehow works to a completely different set of laws that somehow allow it to intervene on a detail level with our universe. Having to make all those assumptions is the very opposite of 'proving' that such a thing is clearly 'provable'. 

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is not by enormous orders of magnitude enough information content in something like the Big Bang singularity to determine the detailed form of the Universe, let alone the sequence of events which play out in it.
If not the Big Bang and the laws of nature, what else did determine this form and the sequence of events? Are you claiming that determinism is false?

'Determinism" is a slightly out-dated concept. Reality is more complex.

When you have a lot of interacting entities, and feedback, where the outcome of a continuing process can affect the input to the process, and this can lead to 'chaotic' behaviour, where the outcome is in every sense unpredictable, ie effectively random. So even in a world of strict cause and effect, predictability is not inevitable.

You then throw in quantum effects, where events are seen to occur with no apparent cause, and the timing of when they occur appears to be the closest we see to being truly random.

So the modern scientific view is that the course of events is 'determined' by a combination of identifiable cause-effect determinism and some degree of randomness. The underlying apparent randomness may reflect the interaction of a vast number of interacting fundamental particles, which approximate 'true' randomness so closely that the distinction doesn't really matter.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That is the weirdest

Quote:
That is the weirdest description of the universe that I ever heard... but I guess you could describe it that way.

These are your words, though, not mine.

NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Although some have tried to avoid the mythological past by describing the universe in "new age" terms as being an entity. My point is, past or present, is that beings with no body or brain, be they a "ghost" "spirit" "god" or "force" or "universe" ARE ALL ABSURD CLAIMS.

It is nothing but humans conflating their own finite attributes to a utopia that doesn't exist.

The standard old school myth lovers quote old comic books written 2,000 years ago. Some people today claim that there is a "cognition" that can exist outside the human brain. Some believe that the universe itself is a thinking entity. MY POINT is that all of it, past or present, monotheist or polytheist or new age, is all bullshit!

I am not being mean in saying this anymore than Galileo was mean in telling the majority the earth was not flat.

The claims of Magic trics of Jesus are no more credible than the claims of Muslims getting 72 virgins, anymore than someone claiming the universe is a thinking brain.

A NAKED ASSERTION IS A NAKED ASSERTION, past or present. Dress a skunk up in a tux, it is still a skunk. Bad logic will always be bad logic.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sjoerd
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-11-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Luminon

Brian37 wrote:

Luminon wrote:

Yeah, I know this definition and I can in some sense agree with that, if I leave out a lot of details. This is why I understand theism rather as WORSHIPPING any particular god, which is well recognizable. There are theistic types walking around, full of devotion to the god, diminishing themselves, thinking that it will make the god more glorious. They're also very emotional.

And similarly, I can well imagine a scientific method of invocating God (or the universe) to gather an energy for various useful projects, like healing, building, or transportation. All that without climbing into God's imaginary ass.

This is WHY I think the word "atheist" should not be limited to god belief. It should be synonymous with skepticism of any naked assertion.

The energy of nature, both potential and kinetic, are no more cognitive than the turd I dump in my toilet. There is no reason to degrade the natural psychological "sense of awe" to the comic book word "god" which has no basis in reality.

Cognition is not a precondition to reality, it is an emergent property. Nature is nature, it is not a god. "god" is nothing but an anthropromorphic tribalistic mythological word created at time of human ignorance. Instead of trying to repackage a bad word, lets leave it in the garbage can where it belongs and move on.

You are free to have your own God concept, and your disbelief of it, as long as you don't force either upon me. I have not argued for any kind of cognition here so please don't attack any straw men.

Funny that you talk about potential energy and then about "basis in reality". You see, potential energy has no basis at all in empirical reality. It is forced upon us by the dogma of the first law of thermodynamics, which insists that the energy must remain constant.

"Skepticism of any naked assertion" is also a bit unpractical. As far as I know, the Euclidian axioms are naked assertions, and so is nearly everything that you read in a dictionary.

God isn't a man with a beard in the sky. God is an abstract concept: like potential energy, Euclidian axioms and dictionary definitions. Abstract concepts are neither true or false, they are either consistent or inconsistent, and given their consistency, either meaningful or meaningless. The latter is subjective.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sjoerd wrote:Brian37

What ad homin? Are you telling me that The Egyptian sun god was real and had a physical brain that science located and confirmed? Are you arguing that the Muslim god or Jewish god Or Hindu gods have independent peer reviewed evidence of their existence? What Ad Homin? Is it name calling to tell someone that it is bullshit to claim that Thor made lighting?

Are you denying that humans in our species history have never made up stories that were false and sold them as fact? How did you escape what humanity hasn't?

What I say is offensive. I admit without apology. But it is not meant to hurt anymore than telling someone that Thor did not make lighting. You can like whatever you believe all you want. You can claim whatever you believe all you want.

There is a difference between making a claim and being able to show others outside your club that what you claim is credible and verifiable outside your personal whims.

Telling the truth hurts sometimes. But when people face it, they learn. otherwise our species never would have left the caves.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sjoerd
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-11-02
User is offlineOffline
Sorry

Butterbattle and UbuntuAnyone, thanks for your welcome! I am sorry, I wanted to reply to you also today. However, a good answer to your posts requires more care than I have currently time for.  I will be back later and write proper answers to you, and also  to Luminon, thoughtcounts-Z, Philophile, Darth_Josh and to the responses to my responses.... I am looking forward to some more good debating!

 

cheers

 

 

Sjoerd


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 If there is no cognition,

 If there is no cognition, it is not a God in any meaningful sense of that term. It is a blind force of nature.

And if you think potential energy is a fiction, and first law of thermodynamics is dogma, you truly do not understand physics, so are totally unqualified to argue the subject, whatever your qualifications in 'bio-informatics'.

You seem to be cherry-picking science in an effort to back up your belief system, which is a very dishonest approach.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Waiting for Oblivion
Waiting for Oblivion's picture
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Sjoerd wrote:The correct

Sjoerd wrote:

The correct term is panentheism, not pantheism.

No one cares, the point is you gave us a definition and not an argument for the definition as you claimed you would.

Sjoerd wrote:
And the arguments for believing in it are the same as for any other abstract concept, like freedom, justice or pi: because it is logically consistent and gives us the means to talk about things.

I didn't ask you to give an argument for believing your definition is correct, I asked for what you claimed this would be: an argument for beliving in the concept the definition is describing.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10340
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
For the sake of argument,

For the sake of argument, I'll play.
The WOW servers, source code, etc may qualify as omniscient in regard to the game, but they do nothing more than regulate gameplay. None of these is capable of making a choice. At most they react to stimulae. Actual choices require a programmer. Therefore they cannot be omnipotent, even in the context of the game. For example, a sub-programme alots loot for completing certain tasks, but it has no choice. It cannot say it doesn't want to, it just alots the predetermined loot. The rules of the system bind the system to the point that free will not only doesn't exist, but cannot exist. Without free will, omnipotence is impossible. With it, the game collapses.
I could also argue that technically, the game is large enough that no single component of the game can know the full status of the game. It takes time for servers to cross reference with each other. Unless the game stops, it is impossible for the game to know the status of the game.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
To the OP:All you did was

To the OP:

All you did was create a definition that matches reality, then tack on a god part with no proof, or even making a case for the necessity of your claim.  You have no argument for such an extra-universal 'god' besides your flat assertion.

 

At this point I think you have to provide an actual argument to support your claims before anything productive can be discussed.  Why must such an extra-universal being exist?  How can you logically support the existence of such an entity?  How can you even hold a concept of something extra-universal in your physical mind?  Can you define such a thing without changing definitions for well-established words like god, omni-x, existence, etc.?

 

(Edit: I guess the summation is I don't even think you have made a useful claim in your original post.)

 

(Second Edit: Plus, what qualities are you assigning to god?  If it is not intelligent, does it care about humans?  Also, by your definition free will cannot exist.  Are you OK with that?)

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I would weigh

Vastet wrote:
I would weigh in on the omnipotence, but Bob covered it. Still I must ask: How can a being have the ability to do anything when said being is constrained from doing so by natural law? If god cannot make an object that goes faster than light, or a star that never burns out, how is the god you believe in omnipotent?

Quantum tunneling.  White dwarfs.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Quantum

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Quantum tunneling.
Isn't motion.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
White dwarfs.
Die, too.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Quantum tunneling.
Isn't motion.

No, but Quantum Tunneling is a process by which "stuff" does move faster than light.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
White dwarfs.
Die, too.

Nope - they are the "not to hot, not too cold" stars of the Universe.  From what I understand, astronomers have never found a star that USED to be a white dwarf.  They either still are, or they will be some day.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:No, but

FurryCatHerder wrote:
No, but Quantum Tunneling is a process by which "stuff" does move faster than light.
No, you're just wrong here. "Speed" requires movement. Quantum tunneling isn't movement, it's "not being there anymore, and being here" - the particle didn't move, thus it didn't move faster than light.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Nope - they are the "not to hot, not too cold" stars of the Universe.  From what I understand, astronomers have never found a star that USED to be a white dwarf.  They either still are, or they will be some day.
Or they eventually won't be anything resembling a star. They decay just like all the matter in the universe does.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Sjoerd wrote: The universe

Sjoerd wrote:

Hello everyone

Hello, Sjoerd. I should be visiting your country in the next few weeks. I suppose that I'll have to endure bad weather and low temperatures. I don't suppose that you know good tourist spots in Amsterdam?

 

Sjoerd wrote:

The universe plus all of these laws and mechanisms, plus whatever made them be exactly the way they are and not differently, together form an entity that is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Therefore, it fulfills all of the criteria for God.

So you are some kind of pantheist. Ok, the universe does exist. But I think that a definition of 'god' should include being conscious. Blind, unthinking natural forces and interactions don't count. That isn't 'god'. That is just the divinity-free natural universe.

 

Sjoerd wrote:

If you find this argument objectionable, remember how I defined God: as the universe with all its laws and constants plus whatever defined their values. So if you are a determinist atheist, it seems to me that you must agree with me, although you may object to calling it "God".

Yes. The universe does exist. No, it is not 'god'.

 

Sjoerd wrote:

Whether or not you call it God, it is up to you. I do.

It would seem as though you are playing definition games. If you want to define the unthinking, unsensing set of rules that the universe follows as 'god', then such a god surely exists. It is just that most people's definition of 'god' includes some component of thinking and understanding what is going on. If you claim that the universe knows or understands what it happening, I would have to disagree. I have seen no evidence that the universe as a whole is intelligent or has sensory capabilities. So it does not appear to be all knowing or all seeing. That makes it not god according to most theists and atheist. If you want to play pantheist redefinition games, then the universe is your god and that god is obviously real.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Ivon
atheist
Ivon's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Why do arguments for the

Why do arguments for the existence of god always have to be so trivial? If there is a god, and this god wants humanity to believe in him/her, all this god has to do is make him/herself known. That whole "faith" argument only leads me to believe that if god truly does exist, then this god only wants gullible people who don't ask questions, as followers. The current version of god and religion, has nothing to do with good vs evil, it's all about mindless obeying vs thinking for one's self.

Free your mind.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Deadly Fingergun

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
No, but Quantum Tunneling is a process by which "stuff" does move faster than light.
No, you're just wrong here. "Speed" requires movement. Quantum tunneling isn't movement, it's "not being there anymore, and being here" - the particle didn't move, thus it didn't move faster than light.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Nope - they are the "not to hot, not too cold" stars of the Universe.  From what I understand, astronomers have never found a star that USED to be a white dwarf.  They either still are, or they will be some day.
Or they eventually won't be anything resembling a star. They decay just like all the matter in the universe does.

I disagree -- my understanding is that "movement" is very much involved, it's simply "faster than light".  As in not "instantaneous", but bounded in time.  The first experiment I heard of violated the "No Communication Theorem" (which has been violated by others since, as I understand the theorem) with "v" somewhere between "c" and "2c".  I'd be more than happy to review any material you've got that puts "v" at "infinity".  I'll be looking for information on time quantization in the meantime to rebut "instantly" and thus a "v" of "infinity".

And there are particles that don't decay, including "at all", in the existing models.  So unless you've got a source for the decay path of a white dwarf that leads to complete evaporation, vis a vis, Hawking Radiation and black holes, I'm going to stick with white dwarfs.  I would agree that a "Big Rip" end-of-universe scenario might be a counter argument, but since the rest of the universe is going out the door at the same time, I'm thinking that's as good as "never" gets.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Deadly

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
No, but Quantum Tunneling is a process by which "stuff" does move faster than light.
No, you're just wrong here. "Speed" requires movement. Quantum tunneling isn't movement, it's "not being there anymore, and being here" - the particle didn't move, thus it didn't move faster than light.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Nope - they are the "not to hot, not too cold" stars of the Universe.  From what I understand, astronomers have never found a star that USED to be a white dwarf.  They either still are, or they will be some day.
Or they eventually won't be anything resembling a star. They decay just like all the matter in the universe does.

I disagree -- my understanding is that "movement" is very much involved, it's simply "faster than light".  As in not "instantaneous", but bounded in time.  The first experiment I heard of violated the "No Communication Theorem" (which has been violated by others since, as I understand the theorem) with "v" somewhere between "c" and "2c".  I'd be more than happy to review any material you've got that puts "v" at "infinity".  I'll be looking for information on time quantization in the meantime to rebut "instantly" and thus a "v" of "infinity".

And there are particles that don't decay, including "at all", in the existing models.  So unless you've got a source for the decay path of a white dwarf that leads to complete evaporation, vis a vis, Hawking Radiation and black holes, I'm going to stick with white dwarfs.  I would agree that a "Big Rip" end-of-universe scenario might be a counter argument, but since the rest of the universe is going out the door at the same time, I'm thinking that's as good as "never" gets.

Quantum or wormhole tunnelling does not involve faster-than-light travel - wormholes represent a distortion of space-time such that the distance between the ends is far shorter through the wormhole than thru 'normal' space. That is the point, to avoid the necessity of velocities close to c with the massive amount of energy required to get to such speeds, and all the time distortions that come with that.

You might be interested in this article: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/davis_wormholestargates.pdf

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I

FurryCatHerder wrote:
I disagree -- my understanding is that "movement" is very much involved, it's simply "faster than light".  As in not "instantaneous", but bounded in time.  The first experiment I heard of violated the "No Communication Theorem" (which has been violated by others since, as I understand the theorem) with "v" somewhere between "c" and "2c".  I'd be more than happy to review any material you've got that puts "v" at "infinity".  I'll be looking for information on time quantization in the meantime to rebut "instantly" and thus a "v" of "infinity".
Bob has this one.


FurryCatHerder wrote:
And there are particles that don't decay, including "at all", in the existing models.  So unless you've got a source for the decay path of a white dwarf that leads to complete evaporation, vis a vis, Hawking Radiation and black holes, I'm going to stick with white dwarfs.  I would agree that a "Big Rip" end-of-universe scenario might be a counter argument, but since the rest of the universe is going out the door at the same time, I'm thinking that's as good as "never" gets.
White dwarfs are not elemental particles, and thus decay.

Anyway, you're ignoring a basic of physics. A white dwarf is "white" because it is emitting energy. That means losing mass. Eventually - and theoretically, as this process is so slow there may not have been time for one to happen yet -  a white dwarf will become a black dwarf. Entropy will whither even that dense matter, and the black dwarf will be no more - eventually.

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
You could imagine traveling

You could imagine traveling through a wormhole as folding the fabric of space/time and hopping across the chasm. Like, instead of traveling across a sheet of paper, you fold the paper in half, and travel directly to the other edge. 

Don't need to travel faster than light for that.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I understand that some

 I understand that some theories do predict that even protons decay, with a half-life of 1036 years, according to one theory.

White dwarfs do not "decay", they simply cool down thru red, brown, to black dwarfs, nothing to do with black holes.

Black holes only 'evaporate' at significant rates for very small ones. For star mass ones, accumulation of mass from the surrounding space would easily keep ahead of evaporation.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
No, but Quantum Tunneling is a process by which "stuff" does move faster than light.
No, you're just wrong here. "Speed" requires movement. Quantum tunneling isn't movement, it's "not being there anymore, and being here" - the particle didn't move, thus it didn't move faster than light.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Nope - they are the "not to hot, not too cold" stars of the Universe.  From what I understand, astronomers have never found a star that USED to be a white dwarf.  They either still are, or they will be some day.
Or they eventually won't be anything resembling a star. They decay just like all the matter in the universe does.

I disagree -- my understanding is that "movement" is very much involved, it's simply "faster than light".  As in not "instantaneous", but bounded in time.  The first experiment I heard of violated the "No Communication Theorem" (which has been violated by others since, as I understand the theorem) with "v" somewhere between "c" and "2c".  I'd be more than happy to review any material you've got that puts "v" at "infinity".  I'll be looking for information on time quantization in the meantime to rebut "instantly" and thus a "v" of "infinity".

And there are particles that don't decay, including "at all", in the existing models.  So unless you've got a source for the decay path of a white dwarf that leads to complete evaporation, vis a vis, Hawking Radiation and black holes, I'm going to stick with white dwarfs.  I would agree that a "Big Rip" end-of-universe scenario might be a counter argument, but since the rest of the universe is going out the door at the same time, I'm thinking that's as good as "never" gets.

Quantum or wormhole tunnelling does not involve faster-than-light travel - wormholes represent a distortion of space-time such that the distance between the ends is far shorter through the wormhole than thru 'normal' space. That is the point, to avoid the necessity of velocities close to c with the massive amount of energy required to get to such speeds, and all the time distortions that come with that.

You might be interested in this article: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/davis_wormholestargates.pdf

Quantum tunnelling is a result of the wave model, mathematically a wave is continuous, so a wavefunction that ends at some point in space is mathematically unacceptable. Thus a particle encountering a barrier which is described in full by a wavefunction (<--see schroedinger) is on the other side of the barrier (<--brute fact) with some non-zero probability.

Quantum tunnelling is the (A*) principle behind scanning tunnelling microscopy, it's real and we use it to scan stuff based on the probability that electrons will tunnel across a gap in the current onto some material being scanned.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eamon Kelly (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Sjoerd wrote:According to

Sjoerd wrote:

According to the above definition of existence, this means that as far as omniscience and omnipresence are concerned, God exists as the universe: either God is the universe, or the universe is a subset of God. In a metaphoric sense, the universe is a dream inside God's head.

 

It matters which of the two you wish to assert as correct.  This is essentially the difference between panentheism and pantheism.  In regards to pantheism, I too thought it a reasonable way to define 'God' but have since discarded that notion.  To me, it seems that saying, "the universe is God," doesn't accomplish anything.  All it does is further complicate the understanding of a word with too many definitions (God).  Let the universe just be the universe. 

 

In regards to panentheism (universe is a subset of God), I would argue (in simplistic terms) that there isn't  a way to know that there is something 'outside' the universe, so it is unreasonable to assert this as being true.

Sjoerd wrote:

- Is this definition of God compatible with the Abrahamic God?

As for representing an Abrahamic God, I think both definitions you give here are too far removed from the common notion of an Abrahamic God.  It is my understanding that the Abrahamic God has anthropomorphic traits, while (as you stated) you attempt to not have those traits in your definition.  (though as was pointed out omniscient implies sentience)


KiraNirvanna (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Greetings Sjoerd,There is

Greetings Sjoerd,

There is one big problem with your proposal. All knowing, to most people, implies sentience. I know that I would not consider a non-sentient entity a God, regardless of its power or vastness. Without sentience of some kind, it does not fit the criterea for the kind of God most people are looking for. Assuming the universe is in fact sentient, sentience to me, in this instance, boiling down to the ability to utilize and understand information, without this, the power to do anything, the 'knowledge' of everything, and exsisting everywhere is not godlike in the least. If the universe is in fact sentient then it does not think enough of us to bother to let us know it. Given that, even if the universe is "God", I think it's still fairly safe to treat the universe as nothing more or less than exactly what it is if it is not a "god".


skeptiform5
skeptiform5's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2010-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sjoerd, please may I thank you

Sjoerd, please may I start off by thanking you so much for the defenition of 'god', I never have I had that from any thiest, this may not be obvious yet but I am an Athiest .

     I want answers to some questions I have about 'god': 1)  How did god get there? 2) How is god everywhere?

 That's it I just want to keep it short and sweet.

 

 

 


Pillowpants
atheist
Pillowpants's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2010-01-20
User is offlineOffline
The nature of the God of

The nature of the God of Abraham holds no water.  Nobody can really prove or disprove the existence of God.  But given the attributes attributed to said god, we can use critical thinking to access the existence of such a God.  Some of it is left up to opinion.  Although you didn't touch of the subject of benevolence and you did not use the Judeo-Christian god as your base I will use it as an example.  Like cubical spheres I believe the existence of a loving god who commands the death of homosexuals (as we now know while sexual behavior is a choice, orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed) seems rather childish.  I'll admit that I didn't understand a whole lot of what you said.  But I think I may have answered your third question.


John Jubinsky
Posts: 10
Joined: 2010-01-08
User is offlineOffline
Rational Proof of the Existence of God - etc.

Hi Sjoerd.  I read your attempted proof of god.  Basically, I understand it to mean that the universe has all of the characteristics of god and the universe exists so god must exist.  Not to mention any other shortfalls you have still presupposed the existence of the universe.  Allow me to make mention of the philosopher, Descartes.  He is famous for his argument that we as beings are only perceivers and, in this, have no way to know whether our perceptions have anything to do with an external reality.  At most we can say that we have perceptions that we call a universe but which might have nothing to do with a real universe.   Accordingly, they might have nothing to do with a real god.

Descartes' position that a being has no way to establish whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality has been applauded by scholars for 400 years.  With this in mind please consider the following logical disproof of the Biblical god concept:  

The logical disproof of the Biblical god concept to be presented involves malice toward none, is not an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good.  It involves only three definitions, each of which is self-evident. One is of a being, a second is of worship and the third is of a Biblical type god.  The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality. Of course Descartes defined himself as this type of entity on the basis of obviousness. Very exactly, in that we have no way to test whether our perceptions have anything to do with an external reality we cannot know whether they do. Additionally, however, our experiences suggest that when we dream or hallucinate we internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality. Accordingly, especially with empirical suggestions that we sometimes internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality, we cannot rule out that it is our nature to do so all of the time. Therefore, our definition of a being is self-evident.  The definition of worship is veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist. In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence this definition of worship is entirely consistent with the actual meaning of the word.  The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perfect (in goodness) being who holds that it is right for others to worship it. This is entirely consistent with the Biblical god concept.  We shall proceed with a logical technique that involves reductio ad absurdum. That is, we shall first assume that a Biblical type god exists and from this using only logic arrive at a self-contradictory (absurd) proposition. This will leave only that a Biblical type god does not exist and the disproof will be complete. As such, assume that a Biblical type god exists.  By definition it holds that it is right for others to worship it. By the definition of worship they must acknowledge its existence to do so. Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence. However, they are beings. By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions. Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible. At the same time, by definition it is perfect. In this it does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible. Consequently, we have both that the Biblical type god does and does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible.  This is the absurdity. Our only alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.  Quod Erat Demonstrandum.  It is incidental that the Biblical type god would not know whether others existed. Notwithstanding, in its perfection it would not decide that they did much less that they did as perceived. Moreover, in that it would not decide that any who might exist would exist as perceived it would not decide that any who might exist were imperfect. That is, it would not decide that any who might exist were its subordinate. In this, a perfect being would not hold that it was right for others to worship it and the Biblical god concept is again self-contradictory.  Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is self-contradictory.  As set forth at the beginning there is no vindictiveness in this writing. It is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good. As it pertains to enlightenment to the good it is meant to convey that our ability to know an external reality (if one exists) is scientifically precluded by our perceiver nature and, in this, meaningful development as the entities we are may only be realized in the form of internal rewards. That is, it may only be realized through decisions that challenge the self in goodness of motive. Only these afford fulfillment in effort independently from certainty of result.   John Jubinsky MA–Mathematics, CPA

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sjoerd wrote:Brian37

Sjoerd wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, so there is a super brain with no physical brain, with no neurons or cerebellum and has a location that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time?

That is the weirdest description of the universe that I ever heard... but I guess you could describe it that way.

These are your words, though, not mine.

 

Brian37 wrote:

And your invisible friend claim is different than all others in human history how?

Maybe you merely like the idea of a super hero. Just like the ancient Egyptians liked the idea of the sun being a thinking being that was their super hero? Maybe?

You are committing an "ad hominem" logical fallacy here. Please provide criticism that is rational.

 

What fallacy?

"god/God" is a claim that includes the idea that thinking can reside without the physical properties of a brain.

Now unless you have evidence for such I would suggest that you consider that it is nothing more than a human projection of our human qualities.

Naked assertions are not rational and "god/God" are naked assertions. Your claim is hardly impressive or new to humanity's flaw in gap filling, and long before your naked assertion humans invented and passed on their naked assertions.

So chop chop, you say I got it wrong and I am being irrational, then ponying up with something other than a naked assertion should be easy for you. Go do your homework. But do not expect me to let my brains fall out because you don't have evidence and want to pass off a naked assertion as rational.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Eamon Kelly wrote:Sjoerd

Eamon Kelly wrote:

Sjoerd wrote:

According to the above definition of existence, this means that as far as omniscience and omnipresence are concerned, God exists as the universe: either God is the universe, or the universe is a subset of God. In a metaphoric sense, the universe is a dream inside God's head.

 

It matters which of the two you wish to assert as correct.  This is essentially the difference between panentheism and pantheism.  In regards to pantheism, I too thought it a reasonable way to define 'God' but have since discarded that notion.  To me, it seems that saying, "the universe is God," doesn't accomplish anything.  All it does is further complicate the understanding of a word with too many definitions (God).  Let the universe just be the universe. 

 

In regards to panentheism (universe is a subset of God), I would argue (in simplistic terms) that there isn't  a way to know that there is something 'outside' the universe, so it is unreasonable to assert this as being true.

Sjoerd wrote:

- Is this definition of God compatible with the Abrahamic God?

As for representing an Abrahamic God, I think both definitions you give here are too far removed from the common notion of an Abrahamic God.  It is my understanding that the Abrahamic God has anthropomorphic traits, while (as you stated) you attempt to not have those traits in your definition.  (though as was pointed out omniscient implies sentience)

THANK YOU!

I hate it when new agers be they polytheists, pagans, or pantheists claim "I am not like them" trying to cling to the idea of "something out there" claiming that it is a lagit "warm fuzzy feeling" and not the same as the standard myth of the past.

Of coarse  it isn't the same as the past, it is simply a newer myth in an attempt to avoid the past.

Lets make this clear  here. A naked assertion will remain such UNTIL such time it can be compared to something else and can be replicated and falsified.

Calling the universe a god is STILL anthropomorphic and just a newer attempt to cling to warm fuzzy feelings conflating a "sense of awe" to justifying some unknown cognition existing in some form.

No one bothers to consider that these attempts to explain nature are nothing but a projection of our qualities on the nature and universe around us.

The simplest and least complicated explanation that avoids infinite regress is that the universe and nature are a result of a WHAT and not a who.

Pantheism is nothing but a new attempt and no less a naked assertion than the myths of the past.

"god/God/supernatural/pantheism" are ALL naked assertions regardless of how different they are, that is one core commonality they do not escape. Which puts them all in the same boat, dispite

They are no less naked assertions than if I claimed I could pop a Lamborghini out of my rear.

The universe IS and that is all we can say. And to conflate it to our level of human thought is absurd.

All one has to do to know that the universe is no more cognitive than a rock or hurricane is to look at slide of a dissected human brain under a microscope and compare it to a Hubble picture of deep space. The two are completely unrelated and dissimilar.

There have even been attempts to avoid the "cognitive" word while still clinging to a superstitious "SOMETHING IS OUT THERE" status. Bunk is still bunk and the universe IS nothing more than a what and incapable of any caring or superstitious qualities of any kind.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
I largely only read


I largely only read BobSpence1's replies here, and skimmed some of the others, because he seem to be the most versed in the science out of the responders here (if I missed anybody, I apologize).

Bob, I appreciate your mentioning of relativity, and how that prevents any communication between the regions of this supposed god, preventing omniscience. (disproof 1)


As I think some others mentioned, knowledge also requires understanding of that knowledge, which strongly implies if not requires sentience.  Though to be as vague as possible, one could call it a sum of information- that is to assume that every human "knows" everything about every particle in his or her body, which is ridiculous.

Potency *certainly* requires sentience, though; some awareness, which implies additional information which must hold information about itself- this is not possible. (disproof 2)

OP and others, see Gödel's incompleteness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

As I believe Bob also mentioned, quantum events prevent the state of the 'universe' being known from the initial conditions, so there's no possible compression there to rectify it (that, in addition to the fact that compressed information is not the kind of simultaneously cognizable information omniscience requires- "you can know anything, but you can't know everything" is not acceptable).


Bob is right about quantum tunneling; the "particle" in question was a wave that overlapped both positions at reasonably high probability before "collapsing" into the new one.  Particularly important, we can't control that "collapse" to send information.

You all seem to be a little off on the random nature of quantum physics, though.  It doesn't just appear random- no local or global variables can dictate the results of "collapse" (namely due to many worlds), but non-locality is proven by Bell's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem


It doesn't just *look* unpredictable, it is, (although it's not really random, just random from the perspective of those in the state of consequence, post-"collapse&quotEye-wink because if it weren't, information could propagate faster than light, which yields impossible paradoxes.

Anyway, that only serves to further refute 1. and 2.

Likewise, I would tend to argue against omnipresence on the same grounds as that of omniscience, though one could weasel out of that definition.

Omnipresence takes a greater hit from many-worlds, which is fairly well established by the assumed rejection of true-random (it's the only reconciliation of quantum physics that doesn't involve ridiculous true wave-collapses or unbalanced randomness).  By complete and total divergence of the multiverse space through many-worlds, any continuous or at all connected or communicative pieces- even distinct ones- is made impossible.

(disproof 3)

On omnipotence:

Impossible without omniscience (disproof 4)
Impossible without omnipresence (disproof 5)

Omnipotence, despite the other points (despite the omni part), is also impossible due to its conclusions. 

If omnipotence is free of consistency, it is impossible.  If it is consistent, it is bound to the possible, and arguably very not-omni.

Within the "possible":

If the potency is causal, that's impotent against causality- no more potent than any person or force, that only ever follow causality.

Alternatively, if the potency is as a result of control of random quantum events, that is a violation of Bells'. (I.e. it can not be expressed in this way).

(disproof 6)


Potency may not be expressed as altering the initial state of the universe:

1. After the fact, this makes the being impotent, unless it can travel freely through time.
-it can not travel freely through time.

2. The being would not be able to control the outcome of the universe (any of the span of multiverses) using this method due to quantum events.

3. It should not need saying, but the being may not exist outside the 'universe' for purposes of selection of quantum state path- this causes flaws all up and down the list, from FTL information, to omniscience over again.




*Super-luminal communication outside the sphere of causality, but not back into it (or between two unrelated causal spheres/universes) may be possible- this does not negate any of the points of contention, however, but merely defers light speed communication return to a slightly higher but still finite value.
(Anybody reading: If you don't understand that, you can ignore it, as it isn't relevant to the discussion).


John Jubinsky
Posts: 10
Joined: 2010-01-08
User is offlineOffline
Sjoerd, How Do You Escape the Solipstic Question?

Hi Sjoerd.  I assume you are trying to prove the existence of a real god.  If so I can grant you everything you want and still discredit your argument on the basis of Descartes' proposition that we cannot know whether the universe we perceive is real.  We are merely perceivers and in this have no way to scientifically  test whether our perceptions have anything to do with an external realtiy.  In that we cannot scientifically test whether they do, science precludes us from knowing whether they do.  Are you not JUMPING TO THE CONCLUSION that they do?  How can you establish that your perceptions of a universe have anything to do with a real universe and if you cannot then how can they imply the existence of a real god?  I posed this question to you not too long ago and you ignored it.  Please Sjoerd, kill me with kindness.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
John Jubinsky wrote:Hi

John Jubinsky wrote:

Hi Sjoerd.  I assume you are trying to prove the existence of a real god.  If so I can grant you everything you want and still discredit your argument on the basis of Descartes' proposition that we cannot know whether the universe we perceive is real.  We are merely perceivers and in this have no way to scientifically  test whether our perceptions have anything to do with an external realtiy.

 

He stated this outright in his premises.  He is wrong for other reasons, which I have illuminated.

 

Quote:
In that we cannot scientifically test whether they do, science precludes us from knowing whether they do.  Are you not JUMPING TO THE CONCLUSION that they do?

 

No, he stated it as a precondition.

 

Quote:
How can you establish that your perceptions of a universe have anything to do with a real universe and if you cannot then how can they imply the existence of a real god?

 

By using it as a premise, and saying that his proof is useless without it?

 

Quote:
I posed this question to you not too long ago and you ignored it.  Please Sjoerd, kill me with kindness.

 

If you haven't killed him first by not reading.

 

I appreciate your intentions, but you need to pay more careful attention.  If he had not stated this assumption in his premises- of which two were stated- then you would be correct in this challenge. 

Though it is a weak challenge- the weakest, and a last resort for a desperate argument.  That is to say that if the universe we perceive is real, then you concede that this god exists?  Hardly the case.

Let us hold ourselves to a higher standard of reasonable discourse than the theists do- we can start by reading arguments carefully.

 

It doesn't seem like he's coming back to discuss this, though; I think this may have been a drive-by.


John Jubinsky
Posts: 10
Joined: 2010-01-08
User is offlineOffline
Unrealistic Assumptions Do Not Result in Realistic Conclusions

Hi Blake.  Making unrealistic assumptions does not result in realistic conclusions.  He  proclaims to have proven the existence of a god and does not qualify this to the effect that the god is not real.  With all due respect, I was addressing Sjoerd not you.  You have had much opportunity to present your positions.  I have not.  Please do not monopolize.