Do you believe in God?

[WVUscion]

In order to demonstrate that "higher powered beings" can arise and/or be extinguished because fundamental particle pairs and energy can, you'd need observational evidence to validate the theory.

Now, we know that fundamental particle pairs and energy can appear and disappear (apparently in contravention of the First Law of Thermodynamics, but not really) - observational evidence validates the theory (that's not the same as "we've seen it", by the way). But the model that predicted it and has been validated doesn't permit anything complex to appear and disappear in the same way - you'd need an entirely new theory and then you'd need observational evidence of its occurrence.

Bluntly, spontaneous neutrino/antineutrino generation isn't an open door for a deity.

My point wasn't necessarily meant to create a proof for God. It was meant to use the idea of a definite possibility, as accurately recorded by science, to account for God's own creation of himself. That is all on the assumption that there is a God. It simply gives him a way to do what I was saying a long time ago.

I sometimes have problems convincing people of this next point because of my exclusivity of the word God, and sometimes my capitalization of said word. However when talking about such things I use the word God to illustrate an overarching connection between all cultures and religions that use a deity. I actually wrote an extensive thesis on the subject of all religions being fundamentally the same, but that's a discussion for a different time. There can be one God, there can be many God's, there can be NO God's. The point of my theory from the beginning up to now wasn't to prove that God must be there, but that there is a logical progression available to those who choose to believe.

 

[Famine]

My point wasn't necessarily meant to create a proof for God.

It's actually not possible to prove either that God exists or does not.

It was meant to use the idea of a definite possibility, as accurately recorded by science, to account for God's own creation of himself.

There isn't, as yet, any scientific permissivity for the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God - that is there is nothing in science currently which will allow for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. So not only is it not possible to prove either the existence or nonexistence of God, it's not even possible to prove that one may exist.

However, there are several exclusions which deny the existence of God as described by the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran within our universe. Which generates a few possibilities:

1. Texts are wrong. God exists as described but cannot exert influence in our universe.
2. Texts are wrong. God exists, but does not exist as described.
3. Texts are wrong. God does not exist.
4. Science is wrong. God exists as described.

Most people come down on 3 or 4.

 

[WVUscion]

It's actually not possible to prove either that God exists or does not.



There isn't, as yet, any scientific permissivity for the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God - that is there is nothing in science currently which will allow for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. So not only is it not possible to prove either the existence or nonexistence of God, it's not even possible to prove that one may exist.

However, there are several exclusions which deny the existence of God as described by the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran within our universe. Which generates a few possibilities:

1. Texts are wrong. God exists as described but cannot exert influence in our universe.
2. Texts are wrong. God exists, but does not exist as described.
3. Texts are wrong. God does not exist.
4. Science is wrong. God exists as described.

Most people come down on 3 or 4.

Actually you went in the total wrong direction that I was going. An unfortunate consequence of online forums. The scientifically documented proof has nothing to do with the bible. I know you don't know me but I would never use the bible or any other sacred text as a proof for anything. I was referring to the quantum physics idea of before. The creation of particles from nothing. While you could never prove God's existence in this manner, as you stated, you can infer that because it is possible in such particles it COULD be possible in the instance of God. Again, not saying it is, saying that because it legitimately exists in the universe it is conceivable to apply the same principle to the self creation of God. Think of it as the same process of creating elements in a laboratory. In principle you can fit a whole bunch of protons into a nucleus to create a "lab element" as I'll call it. Whether that amount of protons is stable within the nucleus is shown throuhg experimentation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. However the idea of varying amounts of protons in the nucleuses of elements can lead you to hypothesize about how many protons MAY exist within yet undiscovered elements. So therefore there MAY be a God using the same principle. However you are right, as I have agreed before in this discussion, that you can neither proof or disprove God resolutely.

Also all four of your numbered statements are fallacious. Even though I have to admit most people bring it down to such simple terms. It is fairly unfortunate that so many people can't look beyond their religious texts and see that it is possible for any form of higher power to not be bound by them.

 

[Famine]

Actually you went in the total wrong direction that I was going. An unfortunate consequence of online forums. The scientifically documented proof has nothing to do with the bible. I know you don't know me but I would never use the bible or any other sacred text as a proof for anything. I was referring to the quantum physics idea of before. The creation of particles from nothing.

Yyyyyeah, but I covered that before...

While you could never prove God's existence in this manner, as you stated, you can infer that because it is possible in such particles it COULD be possible in the instance of God. Again, not saying it is, saying that because it legitimately exists in the universe it is conceivable to apply the same principle to the self creation of God.

In order to demonstrate that "higher powered beings" can arise and/or be extinguished because fundamental particle pairs and energy can, you'd need observational evidence to validate the theory.

Now, we know that fundamental particle pairs and energy can appear and disappear (apparently in contravention of the First Law of Thermodynamics, but not really) - observational evidence validates the theory (that's not the same as "we've seen it", by the way). But the model that predicted it and has been validated doesn't permit anything complex to appear and disappear in the same way - you'd need an entirely new theory and then you'd need observational evidence of its occurrence.

Bluntly, spontaneous neutrino/antineutrino generation isn't an open door for a deity.

Quantum theory doesn't even permit something as complex as a neutron to be spontaneously generated, let alone a deity.

Think of it as the same process of creating elements in a laboratory. In principle you can fit a whole bunch of protons into a nucleus to create a "lab element" as I'll call it. Whether that amount of protons is stable within the nucleus is shown throuhg experimentation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. However the idea of varying amounts of protons in the nucleuses of elements can lead you to hypothesize about how many protons MAY exist within yet undiscovered elements.

Yes.

So therefore there MAY be a God using the same principle.

No.

Also all four of your numbered statements are fallacious. Even though I have to admit most people bring it down to such simple terms. It is fairly unfortunate that so many people can't look beyond their religious texts and see that it is possible for any form of higher power to not be bound by them.

What's fallacious about them? Since God's properties as described in the texts cannot be reconciled with the realities of the universe, those are the only four possibilities - science is wrong or the texts are, and there are three ways the texts can be wrong.

 

[Dotini]

I've been following this discussion and have found it very stimulating, although I do disagree with a number of the points advanced. But I join in now to agree that the conversation has become sufficiently advanced that we ought to leave the bible, religion and any thought of an anthropomorphic god behind. We should focus, as best as we are able, on this question of creation of matter from nothing. I will shortly have something to add.

Yours,
Dotini

 

[WVUscion]

Yyyyyeah, but I covered that before...





Quantum theory doesn't even permit something as complex as a neutron to be spontaneously generated, let alone a deity.



Yes.



No.



What's fallacious about them? Since God's properties as described in the texts cannot be reconciled with the realities of the universe, those are the only four possibilities - science is wrong or the texts are, and there are three ways the texts can be wrong.

I think your reliance on empiricism is quite, well, astounding. You agreed with all of my premises but not my connecting conclusion on the basis that there are observable forces in the creation of the particles, but denied the followup conclusion because of the lack of observable forces. From there, all I can say is "I don't know". Because I have no observable forces to present to you that can connect that concept with God, you reject ANY possible connection, which is unfortunately fallacious. Is it possible for me to give you an observable circumstance of the hypothetical spontaneousness of God? Of course it isnt! But one must look at all "unanswerable questions" as something that could possibly be answered in the future.

As I'm sure you know very well, science is a very fickle area. Science is constantly being rewritten. Theories are being updated, and minds are moving forward. It is perfectly legitimate to believe that sometime in the next 100 years relativity will be rewritten, or that the "something from nothing" particles will find a legitimate substance and source. Science can not account for such things now, but they CAN possibly account for such things in the future. Scientists hundreds of years ago could track the movements of stars and planets accurately using the geocentric model. It worked, it just it wasn't right. Thus is the flaw of such strict empiricism.

 

[Famine]

I think your reliance on empiricism is quite, well, astounding. You agreed with all of my premises but not my connecting conclusion on the basis that there are observable forces in the creation of the particles, but denied the followup conclusion because of the lack of observable forces.

No, I disagreed with it because it does not connect.

I cannot see any possible way to go from theoretical element construction - which happens in laboratories across the world daily - to "deity". Adding protons and neutrons to make new elements, and even predicting their properties according to their place on the Periodic Table is normal. I don't see how it follows that "therefore there MAY be a God using the same principle.". Your connecting conclusion is that there may be a God using the principle of fission?

From there, all I can say is "I don't know". Because I have no observable forces to present to you that can connect that concept with God, you reject ANY possible connection, which is unfortunately fallacious.

Again with fallaciousness. Where?

What have observable forces got to do with your principle of element building leading to God?

As I'm sure you know very well, science is a very fickle area. Science is constantly being rewritten. Theories are being updated, and minds are moving forward. It is perfectly legitimate to believe that sometime in the next 100 years relativity will be rewritten, or that the "something from nothing" particles will find a legitimate substance and source.

We have that now!

Science can not account for such things now, but they CAN possibly account for such things in the future. Scientists hundreds of years ago could track the movements of stars and planets accurately using the geocentric model. It worked, it just it wasn't right. Thus is the flaw of such strict empiricism.

I'm sorry, but you've just trundled off on a tangent now.

I've been patiently explaining to you that one should not sacrifice what is the right answer for what is an answer right now, so quite why you're saying the same thing back to me is a mystery particularly given that you're attempting to refute a notion I have pointed out is predicted by quantum mechanics - yet using the same idea to advance a notion precluded by quantum mechanics.

Fundamental particles can, and do, pop in and out of existence. That doesn't mean that anything else you care to imagine may behave in the same manner - a spontaneously generated neutrino doesn't mean you can have a spontaneously generated chandelier, bowl of porridge, Wurlitzer, ring-tailed Lemur or deity. The argument "Ah, but you said something comes from nothing" is not a valid one.

 

[Dotini]

"If the universe is operationally defined as everything that is detectable or potentially detectable, there can be no such thing as "new" matter. So when we speak of the creation of new matter we do not mean matter coming into our universe from somewhere else (there is nowhere else) or from nothing. We must mean transformation of previously existing mass-energy. Probably this means materialization from a previously existing diffused state - a concept which would relate well to quantum physics."...

..."As for the creation of matter from a zero mass state, it is often objected that pair creation of electrons and positrons from photons in terrestrial laboratories does not produce low-mass electrons. The answer must be that these photons are localized packets of energy and the created electrons and positrons are local entities - not drawn from elsewhere in the universe. In the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED) which is used in these problems, it is interesting to note that the mass of the electron is not given by theory but must be specified by experiment in order to introduce a scale length. This implies that a longer scale length for the experiment should set a lower mass for the electron.

As for the vexing problem of renormalizability, the theory encounters infrared divergences as one allows the photon rest mass to approach zero. The cloud of "soft" (long wavelength) photons approaches infinity. Perhaps this longstanding difficulty of infinite electron mass from the theory of quantum electrodynamics has been telling us something important about the connection of electron mass with the universe at large."
-Halton Arp

 

[Blitz187]

"If the universe is operationally defined as everything that is detectable or potentially detectable, there can be no such thing as "new" matter. So when we speak of the creation of new matter we do not mean matter coming into our universe from somewhere else (there is nowhere else) or from nothing. We must mean transformation of previously existing mass-energy. Probably this means materialization from a previously existing diffused state - a concept which would relate well to quantum physics."
-Halton Arp

Im just reading along in this thread, very interesting by the way 👍... My knowledge of the subject is not vast enough to even begin to bring some good arguments to the table, BUT I was wondering did this quote come from a book? And if so, which book? Thanks!

 

[Dotini]

which book?

Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, by Halton Arp, Apeiron Press, 1998

For those interested, further discussion along these lines can be found in the Astronomy thread in the Rumble Strip.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Denur]

Very educational, a thread like this (just like the Creation vs. Evolution thread). It is like watching the Discovery Channel in slow motion. Thank you, but actually no thanks. As soon as you have to bring science into a discussion about the existence of God (or Creation for that matter), you are on a dead-end track. And using fancy words does not help either, although some people will be impressed by them and see you (I do not refer to anyone in particular here) as an authority in (biblical) science, others here will dismiss it as a lot of irrelivant bla bla.
Can we just agree that there is absolutely no way to prove that God(s) exists or does not exist? Some might argue that the Bible proves it all, but that only works when you believe the Bible to be true. And when you don't believe the Bible to be (entirely) true, then where is your basis to believe in (the christian) God?
And on another note, some infidels say that they will believe in God when they see Him. But how will you know that he/she/it is Him/Her/It? I think that these kind of people would drop on their knees when they'd encounter something like Q (the omnipotent being from Star Trek's Q Continuum).
This is my question to you: If God were to present himself to you, what would it take for you to believe that he is what he claims to be?

 

[Famine]

Can we just agree that there is absolutely no way to prove that God(s) exists or does not exist?

The traditional scientist population of the Current Events forum have already stated that.

And on another note, some infidels say that they will believe in God when they see Him. But how will you know that he/she/it is Him/Her/It? I think that these kind of people would drop on their knees when they'd encounter something like Q (the omnipotent being from Star Trek's Q Continuum).
This is my question to you: If God were to present himself to you, what would it take for you to believe that he is what he claims to be?

Infidels!

It's a tricky question though. Almost any demonstration a deity could provide simply wouldn't meet the standards and wouldn't be unexplainable by any other means.

A similar question could also be posed to believers - how do believers know when God presents himself to them?

 

[WVUscion]

No, I disagreed with it because it does not connect.

I cannot see any possible way to go from theoretical element construction - which happens in laboratories across the world daily - to "deity". Adding protons and neutrons to make new elements, and even predicting their properties according to their place on the Periodic Table is normal. I don't see how it follows that "therefore there MAY be a God using the same principle.". Your connecting conclusion is that there may be a God using the principle of fission?



Again with fallaciousness. Where?

What have observable forces got to do with your principle of element building leading to God?



We have that now!



I'm sorry, but you've just trundled off on a tangent now.

I've been patiently explaining to you that one should not sacrifice what is the right answer for what is an answer right now, so quite why you're saying the same thing back to me is a mystery particularly given that you're attempting to refute a notion I have pointed out is predicted by quantum mechanics - yet using the same idea to advance a notion precluded by quantum mechanics.

Fundamental particles can, and do, pop in and out of existence. That doesn't mean that anything else you care to imagine may behave in the same manner - a spontaneously generated neutrino doesn't mean you can have a spontaneously generated chandelier, bowl of porridge, Wurlitzer, ring-tailed Lemur or deity. The argument "Ah, but you said something comes from nothing" is not a valid one.

Sorry for the delay in my reply. I had to run off to class.

Here is your clear cut, no questions asked connection that I have been drawing at. I will display it in a few seperate ways.

First, I'd like to reiterate the classical/traditional definition of God. I know you've heard this a dozen times since this morning Famine, but it is GREATLY important to my argument. You and others may not agree with this definition for varieties of reasons, and I assure you that you are not alone. There have been thousands of volumes dedicated solely to refuting some of these premises. Nevertheless, UNLESS an argument about God is preceded by one party altering the classical definition, then it must be assumed that the classical definition is intact. This is how philosophers have been arguing on this very subject for a very very long time.

If God exists he is:

a. All Powerful (Omnipotent)
b. All Knowing (Omniscient)
c. Perfectly Good

Here is my argument.

1.) If God exists, then he is all powerful
2.) If he is all powerful, then he has the power to do all things possible
3.) If he has the power to do all things possible, then he has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.
4.) God Exists
_______________________

5.) He has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.

This follows the valid and sound logical pattern:

If A then B
If B then C
If C then D
A
________
D


THIS is the connection. Lemurs, Chandaliers, and any other object that you can think of do not share the definition of God with God. This argument DOES NOT prove that God exists, and as I have said many times before it was NEVER ment to. All I have said, over, and over, and over, and over again is that IF he exists then him being the first uncaused cause would be viable via the argument I just stated.

THE ONLY WAY to rebuke this argument is if D is false, because A, B, and C are following the accepted classical definition of God.

As for why you're four points were fallacious

1. Texts are wrong. God exists as described but cannot exert influence in our universe.
2. Texts are wrong. God exists, but does not exist as described.
3. Texts are wrong. God does not exist.
4. Science is wrong. God exists as described.

Those four statements provide an unnecessary "and". I will just illustrate in detail number 1 out of the four, because the same fallacy applies to all of them.

1.) Texts are wrong. God Exists as described but cannot exert influence in our universe.

This means that if God exists, does not exist, or exists as described, the only options are either Texts are wrong, or Science is wrong. This is NOT true. Both science AND texts can be right in partial senses, IN ADDITION to God existing.

Your fallacy reads as follows in symbolic form

Only A and B
or A and C
or A and D
or E and F

I just gave an example of X and Y not accounted for by your four points. Thus it is a fallacy. It has a specific name but I can't quite remember it at the moment.

 

[Dotini]

Can we just agree that there is absolutely no way to prove that God(s) exists or does not exist?

I have broached the proposition that we could get closer to proving the existence of a creator if we could prove (a) consciousness is universal and continues after death and (b) matter is continuously being created in the local supercluster of galaxies in a way that defies the 1st law of thermodynamics. But so far, no takers. Not that I blame them, for "God" would then redefined for the 21st century. Around here we love to get into way too much emotional difficulty when we start arguing about the traditional God, religion and those old-fashioned anthologies known as "holy" books.

In my view, even if a creator could be proved to exist, it would be very wrong to attribute anthropomorphic qualities to it.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

"Observations in science are the primary and final authority." - Halton Arp

 

[Famine]

1.) If God exists, then he is all powerful
2.) If he is all powerful, then he has the power to do all things possible
3.) If he has the power to do all things possible, then he has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.
4.) God Exists
_______________________

5.) He has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.

This follows the valid and sound logical pattern:

If A then B
If B then C
If C then D
A
________
D


THIS is the connection. Lemurs, Chandaliers, and any other object that you can think of do not share the definition of God with God. This argument DOES NOT prove that God exists, and as I have said many times before it was NEVER ment to. All I have said, over, and over, and over, and over again is that IF he exists then him being the first uncaused cause would be viable via the argument I just stated.

THE ONLY WAY to rebuke this argument is if D is false, because A, B, and C are following the accepted classical definition of God.

Except that what A, B and C establish renders D unnecessary. If God exists and is all powerful, it's irrelevant what acts he can perform since we've established he can perform them.

So the notion of the instant of universal creation isn't relevant to the existence of God.

However, we're still left with a fundamental problem on the creation of God. According to scripture, God has always existed. According to your variant, a creator popped into existence, created and popped out again. So let's run through your list:

1.) If God exists, then he is all powerful
2.) If he is all powerful, then he has the power to do all things possible
3.) If he has the power to do all things possible, then he has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.
4.) God doesn't yet exist.

If A then B.
If B then C.
If C then D.
Not A. Not B. Not C. Not D.

As for why your four points were fallacious

Those four statements provide an unnecessary "and". I will just illustrate in detail number 1 out of the four, because the same fallacy applies to all of them.

1.) Texts are wrong. God Exists as described but cannot exert influence in our universe.

This means that if God exists, does not exist, or exists as described, the only options are either Texts are wrong, or Science is wrong. This is NOT true. Both science AND texts can be right in partial senses, IN ADDITION to God existing.

Your fallacy reads as follows in symbolic form

Only A and B
or A and C
or A and D
or E and F

I just gave an example of X and Y not accounted for by your four points. Thus it is a fallacy. It has a specific name but I can't quite remember it at the moment.

You've either missed or ignored the part when I said that nothing in science presently allows for God in the form described in the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran. So my four possibilities are the only ones, as the description of God in these texts is at odds with present science:

1. Texts are wrong. God exists as described but cannot exert influence in our universe.
(science is right and God as described cannot exist in our universe; the texts describe God correctly, but not his actions as he cannot exist in our universe)
2. Texts are wrong. God exists, but does not exist as described.
(science is right and God as described cannot exist in our universe; the texts describe God incorrectly, but his actions correctly)
3. Texts are wrong. God does not exist.
(science is right and God as described cannot exist in our universe; the texts describe God and his actions incorrectly)
4. Science is wrong. God exists as described.
(science is wrong; the texts describe God and his actions correctly)

Three variables - scientific wisdom, the characteristics of God, the abilities of God. Four possible results, as the two others are precluded by either mutual exclusivity (both are right; this is currently not possible as science does not permit the existence of God as described) or by redundancy (both are wrong; this is not possible as God would then not exist but be permitted to).

There is no other possibility until scientific wisdom changes to permit the possibility of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being.

 

[WVUscion]

Except that what A, B and C establish renders D unnecessary. If God exists and is all powerful, it's irrelevant what acts he can perform since we've established he can perform them.

So the notion of the instant of universal creation isn't relevant to the existence of God.

However, we're still left with a fundamental problem on the creation of God. According to scripture, God has always existed. According to your variant, a creator popped into existence, created and popped out again. So let's run through your list:

1.) If God exists, then he is all powerful
2.) If he is all powerful, then he has the power to do all things possible
3.) If he has the power to do all things possible, then he has the power to create "something from nothing" in a similar fashion as illustrated numerous times by Famine on the subject of Quantum Physics.
4.) God doesn't yet exist.

If A then B.
If B then C.
If C then D.
Not A. Not B. Not C. Not D.

I love how you answered your own question again. Its awesome

You're right D in itself IS unnecessary because the established God could do anything. Thus doing the particle creation we were talking about.

However you don't remain consistent on this thought...and I'd like to know why...

However, we're still left with a fundamental problem on the creation of God. According to scripture, God has always existed. According to your variant, a creator popped into existence, created and popped out again. So let's run through your list:

You just got finished saying that if God was all powerful then my argument was irrelevant. But you put a LIMIT on "all powerful" in that quote above. Why can't all powerful mean created ones self? It seems highly plausible, especially given you're detailed examples of particle creation.

All you did with my argument was made room for another premise before the conclusion, which is utterly unnecessary...

4.) God doesn't exist yet
5.) God creates himself
__________

Conclusion

Further, I'm kind of confused as to why it is necessary to accept all printed scripture in regards to God when trying to wrestle out theories regarding his possible existence? The bible, the torah, and all other religious texts tend to contradict themselves. Science does the exact same thing. I just finished a lengthy section in Philosophy of Science in regards to how scientists can take the exact same parameters and come up with different conclusions, based on many factors that are independent of the experiment itself.

You can drive around this all you want, I'm not forcing you to agree with me. But my argument is valid and sound, it uses the accepted definition of God, and uses a principle that YOU YOURSELF support greatly. There is no evident fallacy.

However if you want to change the definition of God then I encourage you too! Because refuting say, claim 1, changes a great deal about the argument for the existence of God.

 

[Famine]

I love how you answered your own question again. Its awesome

You're right D in itself IS unnecessary because the established God could do anything. Thus doing the particle creation we were talking about.

However you don't remain consistent on this thought...and I'd like to know why...

I am perfectly consistent - you keep moving the goalposts. It has nothing to do with particles or elements at all.

You just got finished saying that if God was all powerful then my argument was irrelevant. But you put a LIMIT on "all powerful" in that quote above. Why can't all powerful mean created ones self?

Because that god IS only all-powerful. Not WAS.

For God to be all-powerful, God must exist. If he doesn't, then he isn't. Your own "premise A".

It seems highly plausible, especially given your detailed examples of particle creation.

And again, spontaneous emergence of leptons cannot be scaled up.

All you did with my argument was made room for another premise before the conclusion, which is utterly unnecessary...

4.) God doesn't exist yet
5.) God creates himself

5 is not possible given 4.

God being all-powerful precludes God's creation. God's existence precludes his non-existence. This is still where your infinite regression lies - with God it's turtles all the way down.

Further, I'm kind of confused as to why it is necessary to accept all printed scripture in regards to God when trying to wrestle out theories regarding his possible existence?

Then why do you stick rigidly to "the classical definition" of God? From where do we get this definition? Scripture.

The bible, the torah, and all other religious texts tend to contradict themselves.

Oddly, the Qu'ran is pretty good about that.

You can drive around this all you want, I'm not forcing you to agree with me. But my argument is valid and sound, it uses the accepted definition of God, and uses a principle that YOU YOURSELF support greatly. There is no evident fallacy.

Except that we've established that the principle is irrelevant to the discussion because it isn't scaleable and that the ability of an all-powerful creator to create itself can only exist if the creator already exists - then of course it can't actually create itself. In that respect alone, the "eternal creator" model of the major monotheistic religions is more valid that one in which a creator creates itself, then everything, then disappears.

However if you want to change the definition of God then I encourage you to!

Why would I do that? I have, after all, been at pains to point out that quantum mechanics disagrees with both the abilities and actions of the classical definitons of God.

 

[Denur]

I have broached the proposition that we could get closer to proving the existence of a creator if we could prove (a) consciousness is universal and continues after death and (b) matter is continuously being created in the local supercluster of galaxies in a way that defies the 1st law of thermodynamics.

I must have missed those propositions of yours.
(a) I've got little idea what you mean by consciousness is universal, but experiencing life after death (and being consciousness of your previous life) would merely prove that there is life after death.
(b) We've only scratched the surface of what there is to learn about the universe. Not long ago we knew that the universal expansion would come to a hold and reverse into a collapse. But now we know that the universe's expansion is actually accelerating! Which brings black matter and black energy into play. Because of these, the 1st law of thermodynamics may actually still hold true, but just needs a few more variables to the equation.

Besides, invalidating a scientific theory does not mean getting closer to proving the existence of a creator.

In my view, even if a creator could be proved to exist, it would be very wrong to attribute anthropomorphic qualities to it.

I couldn't agree more, but wasn't men created in his image? (or should I say: "Isn't He created in our image"?).

 

[WVUscion]

Except that we've established that the principle is irrelevant to the discussion because it isn't scaleable and that the ability of an all-powerful creator to create itself can only exist if the creator already exists - then of course it can't actually create itself. In that respect alone, the "eternal creator" model of the major monotheistic religions is more valid that one in which a creator creates itself, then everything, then disappears.

Except we haven't established such a thing? Maybe this is the point you are trying to bring accross that I am not understanding. Your main objection to my INITIAL theory was that it was possible for there to be something coming out of nothing. If this is the case then it MUST be caused by itself, or has no cause at all. If neither of these are true then it hasn't come from nothing, it has simply come from something that we don't quite understand yet.

So what is it? If the particles legitimately came from nothing because it created itself OR it had no cause whatsoever then everything in that paragraph I quoted is false. I made the connection to that that you absolutely refuse to accept for reasons unknown. Your qualm about the source of God is resolved by either it creating itself, or it having no cause. You can't say that something is possible, but is likewise something that God cannot do. If the particles can be createde from LEGITIMATELY NOTHING, or be created from themselves, then so can God. You can continue to tell me that my argument isn't valid, but it follows a logical, valid, and sound format where each premise moves from one to the other. You can't refute that. I am so very sorry.

If you're saying that it DIDNT come from nothing, that it is just something we don't understand yet, then your argument collapses. The whole basis of these two pages are on your claims about particle creation via quantum mechanics. The ONLY way you refuted an infinite regress in science is through the creation of particles from nothing in this fashion.

So what are you trying to say?

 

[Famine]

Except we haven't established such a thing?

Well, I've stated it several times.

Maybe this is the point you are trying to bring accross that I am not understanding. Your main objection to my INITIAL theory was that it was possible for there to be something coming out of nothing.

No. My main objection to your initial theory was that you claimed it solved infinite regress, when in fact it requires it.

If the particles can be createde from LEGITIMATELY NOTHING, or be created from themselves, then so can God.

This is where you're tripping yourself up. Some kinds of leptons can be brought into our universe from nothing. There is no connection to the creation of anything more complex. It. Isn't. Scaleable.

You can continue to tell me that my argument isn't valid, but it follows a logical, valid, and sound format where each premise moves from one to the other. You can't refute that. I am so very sorry.

You have a colossal leap of faith (no pun intended) that the behaviour of omniscient beings can be inferred from the behaviour of leptons. Why?

 

[WVUscion]

Because I am simply following claim 1: God is all powerful. It seems to me that "all powerful" means that God can do anything that has been deemed possible. Obviously the things that you are describing are possible are they not? So what specifically about them makes them greater then "all powerful"?


But really in all honesty this is all like beating a dead horse. As I said a page ago, these are two legitimately opposite, and logical ways to look at the same problem. Who exactly is to say that God IS all powerful? If he isn't then my claim has no basis. Science can take a revolutionary jump tomorrow that can send it in the opposite direction of where you are going? Then you're claim would have no basis.

I can guarantee you that I am not a religion nut, that I am an argument nut that has taken the religious side a number of times because it has become increasingly popular to give faith the beating stick. As I tell people very often, I am on the never ending quest for truth. There really is no idea or theory that doesn't have some sort of potential to lead us closer to some sort of truth. Some people stand behind their science with a banner of truth. Others stand behind their banner of faith. Both sides are wrong. Nothing alone is the answer. The answer rests in the conglomerate of unanswerable questions that transcend us all. I enjoy arguing, as it seems you do too Famine, basically the same position from different perspectives.

 

[Dotini]

I must have missed those propositions of yours.
(a) I've got little idea what you mean by consciousness is universal, but experiencing life after death (and being consciousness of your previous life) would merely prove that there is life after death.
(b) We've only scratched the surface of what there is to learn about the universe. Not long ago we knew that the universal expansion would come to a hold and reverse into a collapse. But now we know that the universe's expansion is actually accelerating! Which brings black matter and black energy into play. Because of these, the 1st law of thermodynamics may actually still hold true, but just needs a few more variables to the equation.

Besides, invalidating a scientific theory does not mean getting closer to proving the existence of a creator.

I couldn't agree more, but wasn't men created in his image? (or should I say: "Isn't He created in our image"?).

Denur, thanks for your question. My proposition appeared in post #1653, a couple of pages back. I proposed not only that consciousness survives death, but also that the living mind could transcend time and space, could travel to the far side of the Earth, the Moon or the universe, and exchange information and bring it back. Like the important physicist Mach, I think it is important to understand that the fundamental particles which make up our bodies and our brains, and thus they themselves, are in continual contact with the rest of the universe.

We are likely closer to the beginning of science than the end. For instance the notions of the big bang, expanding/accelerating universe, black holes, dark matter and dark energy seem to me very unlikely to be validated by rigorous observation. Please see the Astronomy thread for more details on this.

Remember that I do not claim that the 1st law of thermodynamics is invalid. It is valid. I do feel that matter is continually being created in the nuclei of active galaxies, that the universe is continually unfolding from many points. These are matters of observation. It remains to be completely explained how "new" matter is brought into existence. We could speak more about this, but the others are too wrapped around formal logic, doddering philosophies and dusty old books to think too much about actual observations and their implications for new paradigms in science.

Also I have not claimed that the proof of life after death or universal consciousness proves god, only that it is suggestive of a higher power or creator. We have a long road ahead of us, why rush?

In controlled experiments in university labs, subjects returning from deeply altered states of consciousness have consistently reported contact with highly intelligent entities not resembling man.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

Because I am simply following claim 1: God is all powerful. It seems to me that "all powerful" means that God can do anything that has been deemed possible.

Except you aren't. Your reasoning that God is all-powerful precludes the creation of God. If God is all-powerful, how can he have been created?

An all-powerful God can do anything if he exists. If he doesn't exist, he cannot - and thus cannot create himself. The God in your conjecture, the one that is created, cannot be all-powerful because he was created.

This is why monotheism dodges the question entirely and simply claims it's turtles all the way down. To them God is and always has been.

But really in all honesty this is all like beating a dead horse. As I said a page ago, these are two legitimately opposite, and logical ways to look at the same problem. Who exactly is to say that God IS all powerful? If he isn't then my claim has no basis. Science can take a revolutionary jump tomorrow that can send it in the opposite direction of where you are going? Then you're claim would have no basis.

Except that's not what I'm saying. I am not, and have never said, that God doesn't exist and, if he does, isn't all powerful. I am saying that in order for an all-powerful God to exist, science has to have a remarkable change in direction in order to no longer preclude the possibility. As things stand, science and the classical, scripture-derived description of an all-powerful God are at odds, which generates the four possibilities I stated (and two further redundant ones, as I described). Most people come down quite solidly on 3 (believers) or 4 (non-believers), though you seem to be preferring all the other options, including the redundant ones.

I enjoy arguing, as it seems you do too Famine

I also enjoy reading, and if you're going to enter a discussion it's vital that you do so.

I've had to repeat the same thing several times, and still you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding my position. But we'll go for one last shot at it.

1. Theism cannot currently explain all the steps between nothing and the present day. Theism requires and describes an all-powerful creator being, and avoids all attempts to discuss the creation of the all-powerful creator being by stating that it has always been. The analogy drawn is that of the flat Earth upon four elephants upon a turtle - when asked what supports the turtle, the answer is that "it's turtles all the way down". This you describe as "infinite regression", and is an accurate description of it.
2. Science cannot currently explain all steps between nothing and the present day. Science does not have to explain all these steps right now. The appearance of a point singularity ("something") without any structure from the complete absence of anything ("nothing") is modelled and predicted by quantum physics. Further spontaneous emergences of particles without any structure ("leptons") exist and validate the theory. This is not "infinite regression", as there is a start point - "nothing".
3. Current scientific theory does not permit an all-powerful creator being, meaning that theistic descriptions of this being are in some way flawed - or that science is wrong.
4. There is no valid scientific or theistic reasoning which will permit the spontaneous creation of an all-powerful creator being. Neither theistic omnipotence nor quantum mechanics will allow this to happen - that is to say that spontaneous structureless particle emergence doesn't allow for a complex system to arise by the same process and theistic omnipotence doesn't allow for self-creation. You won't find any middle ground that satisfies either believers or non-believers.
5. It is neither possible to prove nor disprove the existence of a deity, even a construct like FSM or IPU (or Moroni or Xenu).

 

[WVUscion]

Wow..... This is now the second occasion that i have tried to end this on a positive note, and offered an olive branch of friendship to "agree to disagree", and I am met with personal attacks from a moderator? Really? On GTPlanet?

I also enjoy reading, and if you're going to enter a discussion it's vital that you do so.

I am not quite sure why you think that I have been failing to read? I have read through all of your posts as carefully as I can and have tried to formulate responses using logic from my position in a mature manner. I do enjoy using CAPS to emphasize words. I can understand if this can offend some people, and if it has offended you and given you a sour taste through my posts then I am deeply, deeply sorry.

However with this comment

I've had to repeat the same thing several times, and still you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding my position. But we'll go for one last shot at it.

you infer that you have been the only one having to talk to deaf ears? I hope you have treated my posts with the same dignity I have treated yours, because you would know that i have repeated myself just as much as you have in these past few pages.

Furthermore, if you would like to go that route, I have explained this quote several times.

Except you aren't. Your reasoning that God is all-powerful precludes the creation of God. If God is all-powerful, how can he have been created?

An all-powerful God can do anything if he exists. If he doesn't exist, he cannot - and thus cannot create himself. The God in your conjecture, the one that is created, cannot be all-powerful because he was created.

This is why monotheism dodges the question entirely and simply claims it's turtles all the way down. To them God is and always has been.

If something can be created from nothing. Whether it be a cell, a particle, a diety, or a bed post, that means that it either has no cause, or has caused itself. Thats it. If something else other then those two have caused it then it has been caused by something else and not nothing. You say over and over that its not the same. I say over and over that it is the same. What do you hope to gain by repeating such a thing once it was remarkably clear that we held very different opinions?

Except that's not what I'm saying. I am not, and have never said, that God doesn't exist and, if he does, isn't all powerful. I am saying that in order for an all-powerful God to exist, science has to have a remarkable change in direction in order to no longer preclude the possibility. As things stand, science and the classical, scripture-derived description of an all-powerful God are at odds, which generates the four possibilities I stated (and two further redundant ones, as I described). Most people come down quite solidly on 3 (believers) or 4 (non-believers), though you seem to be preferring all the other options, including the redundant ones.

I have not once said that you are trying to say God does not exist. If you can pull up a quote of me saying that then I will apologize immediately, because that was not my intention. Further you should know through your thorough reading of my posts that I have fervently denied that anything that i have said is a proof for God, or a higher power. On several occasions, I made it plain that if God were to exist, such claims could be used to show how he came to be. You disagree with this. That is ok. Halfway through our discussion I abandoned higher power out of laziness really. God is only a three letter world while higher power is two words. I hope this hasn't brought your interpretation of my posts down a notch because I started exclusively using the word God.

4. There is no valid scientific or theistic reasoning which will permit the spontaneous creation of an all-powerful creator being. Neither theistic omnipotence nor quantum mechanics will allow this to happen - that is to say that spontaneous structureless particle emergence doesn't allow for a complex system to arise by the same process and theistic omnipotence doesn't allow for self-creation. You won't find any middle ground that satisfies either believers or non-believers.

It was never my intention to satisfy either category. Believers or non-believers. If you roll back the clocks to my very first post in this discussion you will see that I said that I was developing something of my own off of standard philosophical thought. The wonderful and amazing thing about philosophy is that one can build a theory that looks so grand only to spend the next year tearing it down to start anew. I was building a new structure that I had been contemplating for a while, and was ready to test the waters with it on a place where I knew i could get mature discussion and feedback. We are discussing difficult topics. Things need to be repeated, and explained numerous times and in numerous ways before people understand them. One of the greatest philosophical thoughts is that the clearest water to you is the muddiest river to me. Things develop and click in different ways for different people. You know this already I'm sure. As you said many posts ago "preaching to the choir "

Finally I'd like to apologize if my thoughts have been strewn and not very well organized. Lack of sleep (going on 30 hours now) takes its toll. If that has caused any strain or frustration for you in understanding what I am trying to get across then I deeply apologize.

 

[homeforsummer]

Wow..... This is now the second occasion that i have tried to end this on a positive note, and offered an olive branch of friendship to "agree to disagree", and I am met with personal attacks from a moderator? Really? On GTPlanet?

Bluff.

Personal attacks? Where exactly?...

It's a debate thread. You clearly like the debate, yet ironically don't seem to like being opposed. It's either one or the other...

 

[WVUscion]

I'm sorry that I find a moderator degrading my ability to read as a personal attack. I don't mind being opposed in arguments. It happens all the time. I can defend myself, and I expect everyone who opposes my opinions to do the same. I just hope that such defense can be in a mature manner.

I wasn't quite sure if Famine thought I was being inappropriate in some manner throughout my posts. I didn't want such a vibrant discussion to get caught up like that.

 

[homeforsummer]

His comment on reading was done so without malice, and was entirely justifiable given the repetitive nature of some of your posts. To the casual observer it does appear like you're ignoring some points in favour of others. Whether you're doing it deliberately or accidentally it still gives off the impression that you're not reading Famine's posts in-depth.

I'm personally enjoying the discussion and I don't have anything significant to add at this time (I've had plenty of input earlier on in this thread, but I see no reason to muddy the waters right now...), but don't get too caught up in what you're saying to forget to consider all of your opposition's posts. Good debate turns to great debate when both sides can present equally strong and equally well-argued points.

 

[Denur]

Also I have not claimed that the proof of life after death or universal consciousness proves god, only that it is suggestive of a higher power or creator.

Basically comes down to the same thing. So endulge me some more: why would it be suggestive of a higher power or creator? Why would anything we don't understand now, be attributed to a godly being? I don't understand many tricks David Copperfield does, and he is very handsome man, but that still doesn't mean that he is devine.

We have a long road ahead of us, why rush?

Talk for yourself, I'm already 42yo and the clock is ticking....

In controlled experiments in university labs, subjects returning from deeply altered states of consciousness have consistently reported contact with highly intelligent entities not resembling man.

Do they have big, black, oval-shaped eyes? (sorry, couldn't resist)

I'm sorry that I find a moderator degrading my ability to read as a personal attack.

I doubt that Famine is posting here in the role of moderator.

 

[Famine]

you infer

Imply.

Furthermore, if you would like to go that route, I have explained this quote several times.

If something can be created from nothing. Whether it be a cell, a particle, a diety, or a bed post, that means that it either has no cause, or has caused itself. Thats it. If something else other then those two have caused it then it has been caused by something else and not nothing.

And I've pointed out repeatedly that it isn't scaleable. It applies only to leptons. The clue is in the phrase "quantum physics". It doesn't apply to cells, deities or bedposts - or indeed chandeliers, bowls of porridge, Wurlitzers and ring-tailed Lemurs which I directly cited and you clearly brushed aside without a second thought.

It. Isn't. Scaleable. "God can arise from nothing because a lepton can" is not a valid argument - nothing can arise from nothing except leptons.

You say over and over that its not the same. I say over and over that it is the same. What do you hope to gain by repeating such a thing once it was remarkably clear that we held very different opinions?

You're mistaking a rigid, proven model of quantum physics for an opinion. You're also mistaking disagreeing with it for an opinion.

As it is, your philosophy may be immensely personally satisfying but from a scientific point of view it's even less viable than the Genesis account. The OT/NT/Qu'ran tales at least have the consistency of "I am the Alpha and the Omega", while still suffering from the same problem of turtles.

 

[Duke]

I'm sorry that I find a moderator degrading my ability to read as a personal attack.

Please note that staff (myself included) participate on this board in our personal guise, not as staff. Kind of like the "opinions of the host are not necessarily those of this station" disclaimer. We operate here as citizens unless we are clearly fulfilling staff duties.

You'll know when he is posting as a staff member.