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?


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
John, I'm not monopolizing,

John, I'm not monopolizing, you just didn't bring up anything new, and I'm trying to help you out here (well, to be honest, I'm not trying to help *you* in particular, but I'm trying to improve the overall quality of atheist argumentation, which includes your arguments, in order to help secularism out- hopefully one in the same goal).

 

What do you make of this?

Sjoerd wrote:
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.

 

Premises + logic = conclusion.

If his premises are true, and his logic is sound, then his conclusion is true.

 

He didn't just present the whole thing and say it's all true, though- he presented those two premises as true *for the sake of argument*- ergo, you can not challenge them directly within the confines of the argument. 

He was very clear on that point, and attacking premises that were presented for the sake of argument and ignoring the argument itself is not an appropriate debating strategy.  That's like kicking somebody in the testicles in a boxing match.

 

He did not argue that his premises were true, but said, only, that if they are accepted (if one already subscribed to them), then his conclusion must be accepted.

 

His logic was not sound, and he also had many ambiguous and hidden premises in addition to the ones he stated- those issues we must address.

Premises stated for the sake of argument, however, if you wish to participate in the argument, are hollowed grounds (like testicles in a fight).

 

If he has presented these premises outright, and claimed their truth, then you would be correct in attacking them.  In this instance, however, you are not in the right, because he did not do so- his statements were conditional.

 

Try to pay close attention to the context in which premises are presented in the future.  If you disagree with the premises (even when stated for the sake of argument), that's fine, and there's no harm in saying that- but then the argument goes on.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hi Blake.I have followed a

Hi Blake.

I have followed a number of your posts now, any I really like where you seem to be coming from.

On Quantum randomness, I agree that the randomness we see at the Quantum level is the best example of something which passes every test of 'true' random behaviour. It seems that such 'randomness' is worth regarding as a fundamental property of reality, like energy, and maybe space-time, not reducible to something 'deeper'.

 

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


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Hi Blake.I

BobSpence1 wrote:

Hi Blake.

I have followed a number of your posts now, any I really like where you seem to be coming from.

Thanks, likewise.

 

Quote:
On Quantum randomness, I agree that the randomness we see at the Quantum level is the best example of something which passes every test of 'true' random behaviour. It seems that such 'randomness' is worth regarding as a fundamental property of reality, like energy, and maybe space-time, not reducible to something 'deeper'.

 

I somewhat disagree on the last point, probably due to wording.  From our reference frame, randomness is inherent law- it is logically impossible (accepting relativity) to have otherwise thanks to Bell's- from our reference point.

However, I would say that the principle is reducible to some "deeper" implications- not at a lower level of quantum physics, but on a macroscopic scale (deeper, in an 'existential' sense).

That is, it presents us with 'many worlds', as the alternative to Copenhagen- if we reject objective randomness as a principle of reason, we come to a viable form of symmetrical a-genesis of the universe.  That is, a fine counter-argument to creation; a logically uncreated multiverse (one solidly evidenced through mere rejection of the principle of objective randomness), which is the ultimate nail in the coffin to the suggestion that matter and energy must be created/have begun somewhere.

Of course, if one accept true randomness as rational (few people will), one ends up with two problems instead of solving them in terms of each other more eloquently, but they can still mutually resolve: on that principle alone [rational randomness] we could also say that the universe "randomly" popped into being, and it can't be rejected due to the fact that randomness was explicitly accepted as true and valid already.

 

In summary:  Not only does this tell us that randomness is the case from our perspective, but it neatly seals the deal on the origin and most fundamental nature of the universe.  Of course it doesn't hand over UFT with a ribbon on it, but it logically resolves any lingering concerns of causality or creation from nothing either way you slice it.


ZeppelinKapft
ZeppelinKapft's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2010-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Gevohndach Nahst!

Great Post! I really resonated with your writing style and your way of thinking, which matched in me a kind of theoretical awareness that I really like. If you would be so kind, I would love to talk with you some more, if either by e-mail or by whatever medium. Do you mind if I pm you?

Essentially, I see one big whole in your argument: Take a duck, for example. You define it as a duck because of a boundary you place around it: The boundary around the little furry feathered creature and it's billl and it's feet and ta-dah, you have a duck. Unfortunately, that boundary is defined completely arbitrarily by you as a human, which is disturbing, especially considering that man is not the measure of the universe.

The problem arises because the god that you are defining as Omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscent is little more than an arbitrarily chosen boundary wrapped around the universe assigned by a human being, a human being who is subject himself to an arbitrarily chosen boundary.

Do you see where I'm getting at? There's no way to truly verify that god exists, because ultimately, the definition of your god is based on an invisible boundary that you simply conjured out of thin air, and when you see that illusion for what it is, suddenly everything becomes flux; there are no objects, only movement. Even yourself, who you see as needing some god to hold on to, is dissolved into the ephemera of constant motion.

You can see this yourself as an engineer. Surely you know about quantum physics and the electron cloud and all that good stuff. The smaller you look at particles, the more you realize that nothings really set apart from anything else: just flux.

So how can you really say that there's actually any "thing" at all which can be defined, including your god? <-- (I swear, Is that a cigarrete? Or a joint?)