Whats the proof that god exists?

  • Thread starter HIGHLYTOXIC
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, people believe in god because human minds are capable of creating something that does not exist. The idea of a god is dangerous because it causes people to argue and commit suicide.
  • #176
Originally posted by Rader

Posted by Radagast --------
giving it high magnitutde properties, such as consciousness and self-awareness. Given we do know of physical mechanisms that are responsible for much of the current universe, and given no evidence(other than unknowns presented in the universes complexity - i.e. which is only interpreted as evidence by those wishing it to be evidence), then a non-aware physical mechanism is always a simpler, cleaner explanation, compared to created by an self-aware entity. Hence my invocation of Occam.
--------

Self awareness is a gifted property, unique of humans, that for now, we can only test in humans. In can be argued though, that physical mechanisms are self aware, but not the way humans are. Is not the atom self aware of electo-magnetic covalent bonding. Its self aware of nothing else. The constuct is its bonding and the axioms are the properties of the atom. This is by far much simpler than a gene.

In the examples you give, there is no reason, whatsoever, to consider them self-aware. There is no decision making, on there part, that cannot be explained easier by deterministic behaviour.

Just so we don't argue at cross-definitions: Self-awareness - to be aware of one's own existense.

In this regards, then most apes are self-aware. Humans gain self-awareness at about the age of two. The test used for this involves a mirror. When the individual in front of the mirror realizes that the image is themselves, this is taken as 'de-facto' evidence of self-awareness. It is understood that they are self-aware, using this experiment, because their behaviour is markedly different from when they encounter another person/entity. Given this is what is used my the psycology papers I've read, it's the definition I use.

This property is, in no way, simple. It requires much brain/computation power. Machines have not yet attained any form of consciousness, much less self-awareness. This is not found in the simpler life forms.

Unless you can demonstrate the existence of a simple self-aware system, then I consider this dismissable on grounds that Occam's razor would deign it less rational.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #177
Originally posted by agnostictheist
I have not read the whole thread, so I make this a general comment, there is no such thing has absolute proof, depending on context and prespective - eg: ours (doesnt disagree with Mu statement)
But that does not mean thus there is no absolute proof.
To be honest, I'm having again I don't understand what you are saying here. What absolute proof do you think there can be? The nearest we seem to have IMO is logical or mathematical proof - truths which are neccessarily the case by given definition, but these sorts of proofs cannot be directly applied to the world - they are just self-consistent systems and the symbols they use have an 'Aristotlian' distinctness which the world rarely or never has. Even mathematical and logical proofs could be mistaken because there is always a possibility that the system used to make the calculation is in error. I don't see how you can get around this in any situation. And claims about rality have even more hurdles to absolute knowledge.

Originally posted by agnostictheist
some people or groups eg: Logical postivism, hold that concepts such as these are meangless, personaly I find this far to restrictive, but on the other hand, this sort of reasoning type does yeild reliable data/evidence and interprations.
I'm not a fan of logical positivism as a whole, although I do find many of the things Wittgenstein said compelling. It seems quite simple to me - 'why?' means 'what is the purpose of...?', ao asking 'why' about the world would be meaningful if the universe had a purpose and meaningless if it did not. Easy.

Originally posted by agnostictheist
If reffering to a xtian type God, this is missleading, rather God can do anything that is Good, and is all powerful (infinite- in his natures and attrubies) infinity comes in many forms and does not nesscerly mean without any except..eg: MUST be Good and Evil etc...
What would be 'evil' about giving us a level-playing field? He is not testing people's goodness or how much they would support him if they realized he was real, he is testing their gullibility, the extent to which they accept emotionally appealing ideas without question. What kind of sick test is that?

Originally posted by agnostictheist

correct, on the other hand this could be again missleading, you would think a transcdant type God would not nesscerly be subject to OUR measurments, while may do so, has a contigent, God is not the kind of father that comes running in when the kids start to cry or want something.
Sure but I don't think he would be any sort of decent father at all if he disappears before the kids are born, never calls and then thrashes them (for eternity) when they don't even think he exists. And this father is supposed to be perfect goodness and love incarnate?!

Originally posted by agnostictheist
then you would be more careful with the difference between God and god.
The capital 'G' is a term of respect and adoration used by the followers of one god who now insist is the only one, and which it would be inappropriate for me to use.

Originally posted by agnostictheist

Hence my argument, but one that does not really say God does exist, for to answer that we need to be in a different prespective, for me God MAY exist, and if so How using for the most part deductive reasoning, and except the altertnative possiblities also. but to use only logic, science etc... is a gross error in finding ones way to God, one has to adimt that this also may easly lead us astray.

Gravity elves MAY exist. Osiris MAY exist, Santa MAY exist, God MAY exist and really be waiting to reward those who make the most money or live the most fully and freely. There are as many of these untestable hypotheses as you can think of.
 
  • #178


Originally posted by Rader
The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.


non-sequitur, the existence of god, which according to legend existed prior to humans, could therefore not be contigent on humans not believeing the it exists.

The ontologic reason is human consciousness is aware of the I, the world and the God.

Simpler alternate views exists.

The epistemologic reason is knowledge of it is everywhere. The parameters for our existence are set so fine, that not time or chance or anything else but a creator can account for it. Creation is a mirror of its creator.

This has a basis that's flawed. It assumes probabilities, which there are no basis to assume. Factors are assumed to have been arrived at by chance, just because no mechanism is known. - aka "God of the Gaps" argument flaw.

...Human consciousness increases not decreases.
Individually, human consciousness can increse/decrease. A coma is the lack of consciousness. Sleep is a reduced state of consciousness. Waking life is state of enhanced consciousness.

Other than this, explain how consciousness can increase. Intelligence would be hard pressed to equate to consciousness.

Complexity can not evolve from simplicity without a reason. We are all aware of the reason. Goodwill and badwill do not mean what they do for no reaon. The world strives to be better not worse.

Actually, this has been shown to be incorrect. There are many simple systems that can be shown to be self-organizing. Simple computer systems can be shown to be self-organizing, without being programmed specifically to be self-organising.


If that was not the case. THEN GOD DOES NOT EXIST
[/QUOTE]

I consider it definitely not the case.
 
  • #179
There was a good article in the news a couple of days ago about research which showed that some animals were cable of 'thinking about thinking' and knowing when they didn't know. I can't find the darn thing now.
 
  • #180
I saw it too, and can't find it either. But I do recall the general basis of the research.

The premis was, that if you can show that animals have doubts about a future course of action, then you have at least partially shown that they have consciousness.

They worked with chimps and bottle nosed dolphins (and humans). They gave each set of animals a series of cognitive tests of various difficulties. There were rewards for successful performance but they also provided a mechanism for the testee to skip any of the tests. Skipping was interpreted as showing that the testee had doubts about being able to solve that particular problem.

They studied the patterns of solution and skips for the three groups and showed that the chimps' and dolphins' patterns were similar to the human one. From this they concluded that the two animal groups had shown doubts, and hence that they were perhaps conscious.
 
  • #181
selfAdjoint,
Before you go too much into that line of thought, perhaps we would do well to have a good working definition of 'consciousness'. I tend to think of most cordata as having consciousness, where as self-awareness (at least in my mind) is more easily defined and demonstrated, and more restricted.
 
  • #182
Originally posted by radagast
In the examples you give, there is no reason, whatsoever, to consider them self-aware. There is no decision making, on there part, that cannot be explained easier by deterministic behaviour.

I can agree to that. Deterministic > The philosophical doctrine that every event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedents that are independent of the human will.

Everything that occurs in the objective world, is a choice. The wave funtion collapses every time there is a observation, choice, decision

Just so we don't argue at cross-definitions: Self-awareness - to be aware of one's own existense.

Yes, on the same evolutionary level of it. The sef-awareness, which i am referring to, is existence of it, on all levels of evolution.

In this regards, then most apes are self-aware. Humans gain self-awareness at about the age of two. The test used for this involves a mirror. When the individual in front of the mirror realizes that the image is themselves, this is taken as 'de-facto' evidence of self-awareness. It is understood that they are self-aware, using this experiment, because their behaviour is markedly different from when they encounter another person/entity. Given this is what is used my the psycology papers I've read, it's the definition I use.

Self-awareness of the individual human varies, in time and place but it has a human level. We are not talking about the same thing. Self-aware on the evolutinalry level only.

This property is, in no way, simple. It requires much brain/computation power. Machines have not yet attained any form of consciousness, much less self-awareness. This is not found in the simpler life forms.

We can make that statement but simple systems that are less self=aswre, do evlove to higher systems, more self-aware and of the previous.

Unless you can demonstrate the existence of a simple self-aware system, then I consider this dismissable on grounds that Occam's razor would deign it less rational.

I did that. Where does the gene get its instructions from? The previous level and where does that level get it from the previous ect ect ect.

My thesis that all things contain SAS, self-aware on there own evolutionary level is, based on the postulate that a creator leaves in its creations, the laws the form and the knowledge and the creation chooses its direction.
A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof. But then there is no proofs of anything. A proposition that is maintained by argument and observation. We observe that there are levels of awarenss, evloution and consciousness. We are the most self-aware entity, we can make this observation down the scale.
 
  • #183


Originally posted by radagast
non-sequitur, the existence of god, which according to legend existed prior to humans, could therefore not be contigent on humans not believeing the it exists.

By being created in the image and likeness of the creator, that would desolve that statement.

Simpler alternate views exists.

Yes there always is but that's mine.

This has a basis that's flawed. It assumes probabilities, which there are no basis to assume. Factors are assumed to have been arrived at by chance, just because no mechanism is known. - aka "God of the Gaps" argument flaw.

Whats your aternative solution, to answer the question then?

Individually, human consciousness can increse/decrease. A coma is the lack of consciousness. Sleep is a reduced state of consciousness. Waking life is state of enhanced consciousness.

Yes true but there is a level of human consciousness and awareness that is unique to all others.

Other than this, explain how consciousness can increase. Intelligence would be hard pressed to equate to consciousness.

The physcial reason complexity of the entitiy. Spritual reason through grace.

Actually, this has been shown to be incorrect. There are many simple systems that can be shown to be self-organizing. Simple computer systems can be shown to be self-organizing, without being programmed specifically to be self-organising.

All systems are built from subsystems of prior SAS.

I consider it definitely not the case.

My conclusion is based on a logical sequence of observation.
 
Last edited:
  • #184
"To be honest, I'm having again I don't understand what you are saying here. What absolute proof do you think there can be? The nearest we seem to have IMO is logical or mathematical proof - truths which are neccessarily the case by given definition."

Proof: has in that what IS - existence

annoyingly is worthy unuseful!

"but these sorts of proofs cannot be directly applied to the world -"

some mathemtical proof can so, for example many systems of maths actually had there origin or represent the world, and thus direct or indirect they are still "proofs"


However having said that, one can bring up Godels incompelteness theorm which fundermentally states that something within a system can not prove or disprove certain premises in a system: and this applies to all of mathematics. (and logic, which most regard has a subset of maths)


the point is we are part of this nice system, so I have no intention of providing an example of a proof, because then the argument I present will thus need to inturn need to be "proved"

if you ask me, there is still a proof of sorts, in the form of self reffering statements, however they tend to be anayltical - and ciruclar and while again not very satisfing or useful, it is a start.

consider the phase:


all things are relevetive (and within that we have a constant)



"they are just self-consistent systems"



yes


"And claims about rality have even more hurdles to absolute knowledge."

I have a distinction between Knowledge, and truthal [true knowledge ] like I said the problem arise in comman languge.



"What would be 'evil' about giving us a level-playing field? He is not testing people's goodness or how much they would support him if they realized he was real, he is testing their gullibility, the extent to which they accept emotionally appealing ideas without question. What kind of sick test is that?"

your making the assumption, that God setted the system in such a way, when it could have arisen has a result of "sin" or people going aganist the intail intent... people are responsible for the gullibility, and in most cases can over come it, if they were not so pre-assumptious and rigid. or one track minded... why does this have to be Gods fault?



"Sure but I don't think he would be any sort of decent father at all if he disappears before the kids are born, never calls and then thrashes them (for eternity) when they don't even think he exists. And this father is supposed to be perfect goodness and love incarnate?!"

Now has he disppeared, or simply appear not to be there, has a result of one being onsided? in that I mean you might expect him to stand at the door, when in fact he could be with you in heart.

actually thrashing is a result of them knowing of God but its were he is not, becuase they have to reject the truthal way.


"The capital 'G' is a term of respect and adoration used by the followers of one god who now insist is the only one, and which it would be inappropriate for me to use."

actually its more to it, is also a cultural thing, for example a god.. can reffer by some defintions has a shining one, much like some vedic practices and even Greek, while God is very different.




Gravity elves MAY exist. Osiris MAY exist, Santa MAY exist, God MAY exist and really be waiting to reward those who make the most money or live the most fully and freely. There are as many of these untestable hypotheses as you can think of.

arguement I have seen time and time again, has for santa he DOES exist, anyone whom read history would of know who saint Nick is, and thus while this argument can for my faith or aganist, it is true that at last some of what santa stands for does exist!

Osiris cults, span probably back to older myths pre-egyptian such has in other parts of africa (using an example like this was probably a poor pick has I read much acient egyptology )

and anyone whom beleives God, in the christian type- sense would matain that God shows himself slowly and in many ways, throughout history, disargees with a affinity with nature...

the thing is while God can not be tested, in the normal sense - the concept of God would be unfair to subject to the test, unlike santa, and even osiris (you see osiris and horus make the dead, a living God often reffered to has the phaoroh) becuase God is beyond it, and even a materalist would argee that infinite knowelege [human] is not possible.

and finally simply becasue something can not be varified does not mean by defult is false, ... o how Godelian systems show up in the most unlikely of places!
 
  • #185
----------
Originally posted by radagast
In the examples you give, there is no reason, whatsoever, to consider them self-aware. There is no decision making, on there part, that cannot be explained easier by deterministic behaviour.
----------

I can agree to that. Deterministic > The philosophical doctrine that every event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedents that are independent of the human will.

Well, I personally was speaking of your self-aware eletrons and subatomic particles. You have given zero reason to believe that they show any behaviour that indicates they are self-aware. Or for that much, that anything below the level of chimpanzees are self-aware. Until such time, I can't see your SAS module surviving Occam.

-------
This has a basis that's flawed. It assumes probabilities, which there are no basis to assume. Factors are assumed to have been arrived at by chance, just because no mechanism is known. - aka "God of the Gaps" argument flaw.
-------
Whats your aternative solution, to answer the question then?

We have found, through trial and error, that apparently random factors and constants were often dependent on simpler physical laws.

To assume that anything unexplained is just the work of a designer, is a mental cop-out. aka god of the gaps.

Self-awareness of the individual human varies, in time and place but it has a human level. We are not talking about the same thing. Self-aware on the evolutinalry level only.

Since you seem to want to rewrite dictionary meanings, without warning, then I will have to invoke the equivocation argument flaw.

Yes true but there is a level of human consciousness and awareness that is unique to all others.

This is not a generally accepted fact/truth, so invalid to use as an accepted fact within a debate. If you wish to make carte-blache statements, feel free, but please make it clear you are not debating.

All systems are built from subsystems of prior SAS.

A statement, not a debating point. This is what I thought you were endeavoring to show via logical debate. I can state that angels come kiss my butt every evening, but if I plan on making it part of logical discourse, I have to back it up by showing it, thru logical argumentation from generally accepted evidence.

I'm here because I like to debate, share ideas, and have my ideas challenged. Not to listen to someone on a soapbox. If you veer back into logical debate, let me know.
 
  • #186
it doesn't matter

It doesn't matter really... religion brings out the good in lots of people and gives lots of morals, without it, the world would be darkened. Also: I think that the whole issue with "God" and "how the universe began" is beyond the human mind. I don't think we can ever find THE answer... and prove it...
 
Last edited:
  • #187
Sir Adam,
Your position is one I have no problems with.

I take exception when someone tries to 'prove' something they accept on faith, using faulty logical arguments.

Regarding Morals and religion:
I, personally, do not believe that if religions didn't offer moral values, that no one would act morally. Most, in the west, are not strongly religious - i.e. when they do something, the religious implications are not generally considered (short of being a very major act, such as murder, adultery). A more empirical way of looking at it would be to look at the religious views of the populace corrolated with the time spent in jail. The percentage of non-theistic folk in jail is lower or equal to that of the populace in general. Obviously the moral teachings of the religious segment didn't keep them from prison.

Morals arise in all cultures, regardless of religion. Religion will always have some association with morals, simply because the spiritual is antithetic to debauched behavior, just as moral action is antithetic to debauched behavior. I this example, I'm using debauched behavior to mean behavior where one submits to their basest, most short term desires, regardless of the long term consequences. Sort of the opposite of asceticism.

Morals can be seen as the subconscious group realization that behaviors that benefit the group benefit everyone, long term, at the expense of some short term, personal gains. These type 'morals' can be seen in primate groups, canine packs, and most groups of 'social' mammals. These morals may not map, one to one, with the general human 'morals', but they do play an important function in improving the overall well being of the individuals in the group.
 
  • #188
Originally posted by agnostictheist
your making the assumption, that God setted the system in such a way, when it could have arisen has a result of "sin" or people going aganist the intail intent... people are responsible for the gullibility, and in most cases can over come it, if they were not so pre-assumptious and rigid. or one track minded... why does this have to be Gods fault?

God made the world, God formed this Grand Plan, God peopled the world with... people, God made human nature. If the system has gone so badly wrong that bilions will be damned because of the 'sins' of others, who's fault could it possibly be apart from God's. Anyway, there is no evidence that the world was ever different, that at any time Mr Yahweh made himself universally evident, across one nation, let alone the world.

Originally posted by agnostictheist
Now has he disppeared, or simply appear not to be there, has a result of one being onsided? in that I mean you might expect him to stand at the door, when in fact he could be with you in heart.
No that's heat-burn. Should I conclude the existence of the God of Indigestion from this feeling or should I take an Alkaseltzer?

Originally posted by agnostictheist
actually thrashing is a result of them knowing of God but its were he is not, becuase they have to reject the truthal way.
According to Christianity, atheists like me will go to hell. Atheists do not 'know of' God except as a sociological/psychoogical fairy tale with no more reality than Thor, Spiderman, Santa Clause or unicorns. You are claiming that people like me really do believe there is a 'God' yet reject him. This is false. Apart from anything else, what possible benefit would I get from rejecting God if he existed? And why would I have to pretend that I didn't believe he existed?

Originally posted by agnostictheist
actually its more to it, is also a cultural thing, for example a god.. can reffer by some defintions has a shining one, much like some vedic practices and even Greek, while God is very different.
It seems to be a strategy employed by Yahwehists to semantically enforce their monotheistic revolution. I won't help them. Yahweh to me is on exactly the same mythical level as Baal and Astaroth. How is 'God' different?

Originally posted by agnostictheist
arguement I have seen time and time again, has for santa he DOES exist, anyone whom read history would of know who saint Nick is, and thus while this argument can for my faith or aganist, it is true that at last some of what santa stands for does exist!
Yes, and the same can be said of Yahweh. Yet theists claim a different sort of reality for their god than a cultural one.

Originally posted by agnostictheist
Osiris cults, span probably back to older myths pre-egyptian such has in other parts of africa (using an example like this was probably a poor pick has I read much acient egyptology )
It was a good example because it made my point well. Myths evolve from other myths. This is the case with all myths. The Osiris myth formed out of an amalgam of local mythical characters - Sokar, Khentiamentiu and probably others, as the nation became increasingly unified and cultural ideas intermingled. The myths changed during this process and evolved with time of course. It is a fact of Egyptology that there is no identified Osiris cult earlier than the 5th Dynasty. Do you think that the existence of precursors somehow means Osiris is real or makes him real?

Originally posted by agnostictheist

and anyone whom beleives God, in the christian type- sense would matain that God shows himself slowly and in many ways, throughout history, disargees with a affinity with nature...
Repeat in English please. Why does God consider ancient myth and occasional unreliable anecdote to be sufficient for supposedly sane people to believe in the existence of something they have never experienced themselves directly?

Originally posted by agnostictheist

the thing is while God can not be tested, in the normal sense - the concept of God would be unfair to subject to the test, unlike santa, and even osiris (you see osiris and horus make the dead, a living God often reffered to has the phaoroh) becuase God is beyond it, and even a materalist would argee that infinite knowelege [human] is not possible.
This is circular logic because you are using the presupposition of his existence and the presupposition of his (oh-so-convenient-this-will-get-us-off-the-hook) 'immunity to normal rules of evidence and logic' in order to demonstrate or defend his existence. This is known as 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'. It is also called the 'Special Pleading' fallacy. All existential claims have the same criteria of evidence needed in order to support them.

Originally posted by agnostictheist
and finally simply becasue something can not be varified does not mean by defult is false, ... o how Godelian systems show up in the most unlikely of places!
Seems like a pretty good place for a Godelian system. This is why it is so important to have actual evidence and not rely entirely on the sophistry of philosophy.
The default is not certain falseness. The default is the background noise of vanishingly small hypothetical possibilities where live the doughnut trolls, gravity elves, invisible unicorns and the like. Only actual evidence can pull a hypothesis out of that froth of virtual entities.
 
Last edited:
  • #189


Originally posted by Sir Adam
It doesn't matter really... religion brings out the good in lots of people and gives lots of morals, without it, the world would be darkened. Also: I think that the whole issue with "God" and "how the universe began" is beyond the human mind. I don't think we can ever find THE answer... and prove it...

When the Christian Church was at the height of its power the world was darkened - that's why it was called the 'Dark Ages'.
 
  • #190


Originally posted by Mumeishi
When the Christian Church was at the height of its power the world was darkened - that's why it was called the 'Dark Ages'.

It was not until 500 years later that the Catholic Church realized that Copernicus was right. There was persecution of knowledge because the Catholic Church had the power in the Middle Ages. Now in the New Age, science has the power. Atheism and liberalism are at there heights. Nothing has changed, just two sides of the same coin. There were great saints in those days as there is today. There was evil in the world then and there is now. Yet human consciousness has advanced to a greater self awareness of what direction to take. We have made progress.
 
Last edited:
  • #191
Evidence that Atoms Have Bizzare Wisdom

Originally posted by radagast
Unless you can demonstrate the existence of a simple self-aware system, then I consider this dismissable on grounds that Occam's razor would deign it less rational. [/B]

Evidence that Atoms Have Bizzare Wisdom
The old two slit experiment has replicable evidence of bizarre particle wisdom.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A gun is able to fire one atom every hour at a plate with photographic emulsion on its surface. If an atom hits the plate it makes a spot on the film. If a solid plate is placed in front of the back emulsion film, any atom striking the front solid plate is stopped and seen no more. If the atom happens to pass through the slit on the front plate it continues to the photographic emulsion.

When only one slit is open, the gun continues to fire one atom an hour and a large number of spots accumulate on the emulsion and one can notice the expected fuzzy diffraction pattern. Now if the first slit is closed and the second slit is opened in the front solid plate, the repeated atom firings produce the same pattern but offset by the distance that separates the the two slits. The atoms are producing the diffraction pattern characteristics of waves passing through a narrow harbor opening.

Now when both slits are opened and again the gun fires one atom at a time the individual atoms no longer land randomly within the usual diffraction pattern. Instead they fall only within the specific "allowed' regions where the light bands of the interference pattern appear and never in the dark band regions. Seems reasonable doesn't it?

But wait! This cannot be. A single atom was fired at a time. There is no other atom, be it wave or particle with which to interfere and cancel each other. Yet the interference pattern occurs and the dark bands appear. A single particle can only go through one of the slits. Already noted that atoms going through the single slit falls everywhere with the diffraction pattern with none of the alternating light and dark bands that result from the interference of waves at the emulsion screen. Although both slits are open, and still firing only one atom at a time,it must travel to only one of the two slits and go through that slit. If the other slit is closed it lands anywhere within the diffraction pattern. If the other slit is open, it never lands in the dark (forbidden) regions originally seen in the interference pattern which developed when there were two slits open.

The atom is a single entity, with a fixed locality. In its passage through one slit, why should opening or closing the other slit have any effect upon its passage? How can it "know' if the second slit is open or closed? But it does know ! Somehow the atom is aware of its environment.

The identical results are obtained with firing single photons. Photon particles of light that travel at the speed of light, the now considered maximum speed attainable in our universe. Even if the photon is infinitely extended, in the time it travels from the photon gun to the open slit it cannot have 'felt' the second slit, check to see if that second slit was open or closed, communicated that information to the portion passing through the first slit and then decided where on the screen it was permitted to land and where it was forbidden. There was no time for the feeler to make the round trip.

This is bizarre.

Attribution: Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. physics department MIT

Sign up for free and check these links:

http://www.nature.com/physics/physics.taf?file=/physics/highlights/6888-1.html
http://www.nature.com/physics/physics.taf?file=/physics/highlights/6921-1.html
http://www.nature.com/physics/physics.taf?file=/physics/highlights/6855-2.html
 
Last edited:
  • #192
"God made the world, God formed this Grand Plan, God peopled the world with... people, God made human nature."


God made human nature, mind defining that. just what is human nature? that can mean many things!

God made the "world", correct but your point fails to complelety capture the point that the world we are in - is not what was "formed" by God... you also seem not to undertake the possiblity that God had a hand in shaping, but did not make it like "clockwork". thus your statement is very missleading.

if you want to use anther logical fallacy try being to specfic in ones example.


"If the system has gone so badly wrong that bilions will be damned because of the 'sins' of others, who's fault could it possibly be apart from God's."

what about the people whom helped to make it the way, going aganist Gods intent.



"Anyway, there is no evidence that the world was ever different"

Doesnt have to be, that's one very narrow minded specfic reading of christian theology mainly in taken the bible to literuly, those not exclusively... for example one can argue that the world is a process, and that Gods has an intent, that we could of chosen.


"No that's heat-burn. Should I conclude the existence of the God of Indigestion from this feeling or should I take an Alkaseltzer?"

Have I said God thus MUST exist, no.

I was just disagree with your point, that doesn't thus mean God does exist.


"According to Christianity, atheists like me will go to hell."

Then I suggest you should read christian variants before asserting such a big claim, for example there are many defintions of the term "atheist" - not just yours - which are externally used from christanity too, and so one can argue that it means one that lacks a beleif in God... what about some tribes whom never heard of God, some christians believe that because they don't know, or heard of God, they thus have not rejected, nor is fault of there own so therefore they don't go to hell... yet they can be termed "atheist" - under the one defintion I added above, they are of course more. But it indicates why you point is dangerously incomplete.

(you also seem blissfuly unaware I don't no your own stance of your atheism, so I didnt comment on it)

"Atheists do not 'know of God except as a sociological/psychoogical fairy tale with no more reality than Thor, Spiderman, Santa Clause or unicorns."

No not at all, unless you want to put words into ALL atheists mouths - Some simply believe that there is a lack of "evidence" to support the claim of Gods existence, THAT doesn't mean they nesscerly all reject Gods existence, but has your so determined to speak for the whole atheist comunity by all means do so...


"You are claiming that people like me really do believe there is a 'God' yet reject him. This is false."

That is true, it is false -- but then again I never said that people like you really do beleive, you simply putting the cart before the horse.


"Apart from anything else, what possible benefit would I get from rejecting God if he existed?"

wouldnt that vary from person to person, I am not you - I don't know what you might gain or not, and would it actually matter, unless that to reject would thus generate a gain? so what doesn't validate in invalid the arguments.

"And why would I have to pretend that I didn't believe he existed?"

you don't - never said you did.


"It seems to be a strategy employed by Yahwehists to semantically enforce their monotheistic revolution. I won't help them. Yahweh to me is on exactly the same mythical level as Baal and Astaroth. How is 'God' different?"

The claim presented by Yahweh is beyond the "natural", yet IF the exists this God, the natural spun from him thus to argue something is naturalistic Does not argue for or aganist Gods existence, but IF he does exist (which is a different question) then the natural is simply PART of the reason for if God existed HOW would he of done "this".


"Yes, and the same can be said of Yahweh. Yet theists claim a different sort of reality for their god than a cultural one."

what makes you so sure that the cultural one is nesscerly exclusive form a "theist" one.


"It was a good example because it made my point well. Myths evolve from other myths. "

Intresting claim, now back it up - the point is your provided a argument that lies within the context of the "provable" God IF there exists a transcedent one, is beyond this, that doesn't mean we can't use science - in some form, those not about God himself, but science does not say anything for or aganist God.

"This is the case with all myths. The Osiris myth formed out of an amalgam of local mythical characters"

unlikely its more possible it had its origins with some kind of "life circle" hence in early osiris myths he was concerned with a fertilty god ( christians will argue that other gods were simply constructed by man - or unless one is a fundie, or maybe not always a fundie, a fallen angel - but God was beyond all this "natural", that doesn't mean that the early monotheistic traditions are thus the true faiths, while I personally believe being a catholic that one is VERY VERY generally correct. the faith, and religion is a "process", and simply stating by natural means does not mean its thus the exclusive opposite, nor does it prove my arguement... notice why I am AGNOSTIC.



- "Sokar, Khentiamentiu and probably others, as the nation became increasingly unified and cultural ideas intermingled. The myths changed during this process and evolved with time of course. It is a fact of Egyptology that there is no identified Osiris cult earlier than the 5th Dynasty. Do you think that the existence of precursors somehow means Osiris is real or makes him real?"

Not that it really would matter anyway< i am all for evolution and don't pinn it down to thus MUST be God.


"This is circular logic because you are using the presupposition of his existence and the presupposition of his (oh-so-convenient-this-will-get-us-off-the-hook)"

I talked about circular reason already, and againt the point is I never Use the argument to thus declare Gods existence, never argee in doing so either.

assume we have the mere concept of a transdent God (for argument sake he does not exist - this is the given premise, but is not known) how do you suggest we make a fair test for it? we can't nor can one provided evidence for the non-existent (negative claims), so shall we now conlude he thus exists? - NO! should we thus conlude he doesn't NO! But that's slighty different from actually asking for EVDIDENCE for Gods non-existant, right subject matter but they are not the same thing.

The point is simple, that's the claim of God, that's different to the vast majority of other gods!, but unlike you I won't attempt to oversimplfiy things sure, other gods have had character aspects of this sort, but it does not change what is important - that the tests we provide are not suitible.

"immunity to normal rules of evidence and logic'"

evidence has many forms, it does not proof things, unless beyond a resonible doudt, but evidence has for has Yahweh is concered can always be argued - reason - with doudt (if the claim is for or aganist) and logic by itself many merely make one wrong with authority.



"in order to demonstrate or defend his existence. This is known as 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'. It is also called the 'Special Pleading' fallacy. All existential claims have the same criteria of evidence needed in order to support them."

there is also a fallcy of providing the wrong examples: in this case I didnt claim God exists, and also the fallacy that nor do I assert that logic alone can "prove" Gods existence, or logic alone should really on how one gets to God, one would look very stupid if in fact God does not act always logically, or in a manner of logic that we can not see.


"The default is not certain falseness. "

stop putting words into my mouth. how could an angostic in this case be certain?
 
Last edited:
  • #193
Originally posted by agnostictheist
God made human nature, mind defining that. just what is human nature? that can mean many things!
Yes, many things - including our selfishness, lust, hate, aggression, greed etc.

God made the "world", correct but your point fails to complelety capture the point that the world we are in - is not what was "formed" by God... you also seem not to undertake the possiblity that God had a hand in shaping, but did not make it like "clockwork". thus your statement is very missleading.
...
what about the people whom helped to make it the way, going aganist Gods intent.
Whether it worked 'by clockwork' or not, God supposedly made the entire system, including the nature of the ones who supposedly spoiled it. If he wanted it to remain as a paradise, why did he give 'freewill' to a bunch of flawed creatures? That's just irresponsible.

Imagine a future scenario where a scientist genetically engineered a population of intelligent creatures and then disappeared, leaving only rumours that he even existed and a whole range of 'rulebooks' none of which were unambiguously authorised by him, and unsurprisingly members of the population had different ideas about whether he existed or what he was or which rules were right and there was violence and terrible battles. The responsibility for creating that situation would be with the scientist.

Doesnt have to be, that's one very narrow minded specfic reading of christian theology mainly in taken the bible to literuly, those not exclusively... for example one can argue that the world is a process, and that Gods has an intent, that we could of chosen.
When, as a species, could we have chosen this? In the Garden of Eden? There is no eidence of such a time. Our ancestors back in the Pre-Cambrian era? If you believe in evolution. Or another time? Did we have freewill and face divine judgement when we were slimy amphibians crawling on the mudbanks and fighting over mates and food?


I was just disagree with your point, that doesn't thus mean God does exist.
Yes, and can you justify your disagreement?

Then I suggest you should read christian variants before asserting such a big claim, for example there are many defintions of the term "atheist" - not just yours - which are externally used from christanity too, and so one can argue that it means one that lacks a beleif in God... what about some tribes whom never heard of God, some christians believe that because they don't know, or heard of God, they thus have not rejected, nor is fault of there own so therefore they don't go to hell... yet they can be termed "atheist" - under the one defintion I added above, they are of course more. But it indicates why you point is dangerously incomplete.
Your use of the term 'rejected' is misleadingly close to 'rebelled', which is certainly not the case. I have not 'rejected' God in any emotional sense of shunning allegiance, the only sense I could be said to have rejected him is that I have rejected the hypothesis as a credible one, based on the available evidence. I have rejected the idea that the Earth is hollow, and the existence of elves and the god Vishnu in similar ways.



No not at all, unless you want to put words into ALL atheists mouths - Some simply believe that there is a lack of "evidence" to support the claim of Gods existence, THAT doesn't mean they nesscerly all reject Gods existence, but has your so determined to speak for the whole atheist comunity by all means do so...
Of course I am speaking primarily of atheists like me, however I was unaware the the all-loving one had a different torture in store for those who simply lack belief in God.
For clarity - here is a summary of my position: Until very recently I would have been classed as a 'weak atheist' ie I simply lacked any beliefs in gods. It is not rational to absolute exclude an untestable hypothesis, but there is no evidence to justify a belief in any gods. However, I realized that that in real terms I did have a belief that there was no God, or almost certainly no God. People need to make decisions in order to function otherwise we would be perpetually paralysed with indecision and doubt. It is rational to pick the hypothesis with the most verifiable evidence, greatest logical consistency etc. (This is the difference between rational and irrational belief). So, I do think or believe that there is no God, but a belief should never be an absolute thing, more of a working hypothesis, which is potentially subject to alteration or even complete abandonment - all of my beliefs have a little 'hole' in them. So I believe, but don't know that there is no God.

The claim presented by Yahweh is beyond the "natural", yet IF the exists this God, the natural spun from him thus to argue something is naturalistic Does not argue for or aganist Gods existence, but IF he does exist (which is a different question) then the natural is simply PART of the reason for if God existed HOW would he of done "this".
I have no idea what you are saying.

what makes you so sure that the cultural one is nesscerly exclusive form a "theist" one. "
Because the cultural existence of God, ie' the idea of God can exist independently of the actual existence of a God. No one sane would deny the former, but theists are claiming much more than this for their hypothetical entity. Did he or did he not create the universe, give evolution a helping hand/create mankind 'out of clay', punsh people with floods and plagues, send his 'son' to Earth in a botched attempt to 'save' them and does he or does he not judge us in the afterlife? These are critical questions. If God is no more or less than a cultural phenomenon, then the atheists are correct not the theists. Do you think we can make things real just by believing? If that's true we can change God and change the world just by believing differently.

Intresting claim, now back it up - the point is your provided a argument that lies within the context of the "provable" God IF there exists a transcedent one, is beyond this, that doesn't mean we can't use science - in some form, those not about God himself, but science does not say anything for or aganist God.
There is no scientific evidence for God and plenty of scientific evidence that many aspects of the theistic story, as given in the Bible etc, is simply wrong.

unlikely its more possible it had its origins with some kind of "life circle" hence in early osiris myths he was concerned with a fertilty god

Sokar was a fertility god.

christians will argue that other gods were simply constructed by man - or unless one is a fundie, or maybe not always a fundie, a fallen angel - but God was beyond all this "natural", that doesn't mean that the early monotheistic traditions are thus the true faiths, while I personally believe being a catholic that one is VERY VERY generally correct. the faith, and religion is a "process", and simply stating by natural means does not mean its thus the exclusive opposite, nor does it prove my arguement... notice why I am AGNOSTIC.
Many religious ideas are mutually exclusive. How do you diffentiate the very very generally correct from the incorrect if not on the basis of evidence?

I talked about circular reason already, and againt the point is I never Use the argument to thus declare Gods existence, never argee in doing so either.
Evidence is the most reliable way to discriminate between a credible possibility and a purely hypothetical one. There is no more for God than there is for the tooth fairy and that's the bottom line. Your faith is probably just evidence of the way this particular viral meme-complex has subverted your thinking processes.

assume we have the mere concept of a transdent God (for argument sake he does not exist - this is the given premise, but is not known) how do you suggest we make a fair test for it? we can't nor can one provided evidence for the non-existent (negative claims), so shall we now conlude he thus exists? - NO! should we thus conlude he doesn't NO! But that's slighty different from actually asking for EVDIDENCE for Gods non-existant, right subject matter but they are not the same thing.
I already pointed out that this is the same level of credibility as for any untestable hypothesis we can construct and there are as many as we have imagination to think of them. Do you think it is equally valid as invalid or equally probable as improbable that there are invisible whales in space or that the world was made by a malevolent computer programmer? If not, why not?

The point is simple, that's the claim of God, that's different to the vast majority of other gods!, but unlike you I won't attempt to oversimplfiy things sure, other gods have had character aspects of this sort, but it does not change what is important - that the tests we provide are not suitible.
This makes no sense.

evidence has many forms, it does not proof things, unless beyond a resonible doudt, but evidence has for has Yahweh is concered can always be argued - reason - with doudt (if the claim is for or aganist) and logic by itself many merely make one wrong with authority.
Don't beat abvout the bush. What evidence have you got?
 
  • #194
CONTINUED:

there is also a fallcy of providing the wrong examples: in this case I didnt claim God exists, and also the fallacy that nor do I assert that logic alone can "prove" Gods existence, or logic alone should really on how one gets to God, one would look very stupid if in fact God does not act always logically, or in a manner of logic that we can not see.
Alright, so you are saying you believe God exists, but cannot know? Well, no one can argue with that, but I am saying that your belief is unjustified by evidence or logic and that faith alone is not justification.

stop putting words into my mouth. how could an angostic in this case be certain?
I'm not - you have misunderstood. These are words from my mouth.
 
  • #195


Originally posted by Rader
Evidence that Atoms Have Bizzare Wisdom
The old two slit experiment has replicable evidence of bizarre particle wisdom.

Let see, you apply macro world rules to the quantum arena, and when you don't get the common sense, macro world response, so you label it wisdom. You know, I usually have a higher standard for wisdom than that, but that's just me.

Usually for something that is both conscious and self-aware, I would expect the ability to make more than one simple yes/no decision.

I would agree that much in the world is unknown, much acts in ways that are so far from common sense as to appear inexplicable. Attributing it to god, SAS, or gremlins, is a varient of the god of the gaps argument flaw - attribution of characteristics and causes due to lack of knowledge, with no basis for making such an attribution.
 
  • #196
Originally posted by Royce
God can not be proven. No one can prove to you or anyone else that God does or does not exist. We experience God within ourselves and know God and know that he exists. It is beyond belief and beyond what is normally thought of as faith. Once God is experienced within ourselves there is no longer any need for proof.
The way this has happened to a number of us is through meditation and acceptance and asking while meditating.

Oh but the proof lies within the obvious.

Statistically, the fact that consciousness appears to exist outside of any mathematical probability or measurement.

Experimentally replicable evidence that sub-atomic particles(of which we indvidually seem to be composed) have an innate wisdom as seen in the split screen firing of photons gives rise to indirect evidence of an unseen hand in everything.

Finally, for us mortals to visualize a singularity or timelessness wherein a Creator has existed with no past, prsent or future timefrane, no substance or attributes or needs to be created out of something on any level. But for the human mind to comprehend things outside of our own experience can lead to relating everything to what humans perceive.

Ergo, you must have verifiable proof that no Creator exists to exclude the obvious.
 
  • #197


Originally posted by radagast
Let see, you apply macro world rules to the quantum arena, and when you don't get the common sense, macro world response, so you label it wisdom. You know, I usually have a higher standard for wisdom than that, but that's just me.
Radagast the macro world, is a result of the quantum arena, the rules could appear to be different because we observe on our level of SAS. Its not as if i was pulling a rabbit out of a hat, there is experimental observation of choice on the atomic level as there is on all levels. On no level of evolution is there a clear explantion of how complexity from less complexity knows how to arrnge itself. A mathematical SAS self aware structure can be accountble for this.

Usually for something that is both conscious and self-aware, I would expect the ability to make more than one simple yes/no decision.

Again i will try and explain my thesis to you, in away you might understand it. Mathematical SAS can be simple or complex it depends on the amount of axioms and the construct. Using simply the numbers 0 and 1 an infinitely long amount of commands can be built up to evolve complexity.

I would agree that much in the world is unknown, much acts in ways that are so far from common sense as to appear inexplicable. Attributing it to god, SAS, or gremlins, is a varient of the god of the gaps argument flaw - attribution of characteristics and causes due to lack of knowledge, with no basis for making such an attribution.

You are making three choices here. In order to have a SAS structure you would need a creator, so both then would not be excluded.

I would tend to argee with you if we were posting 500 years ago, but today we have direct observation of these things and experimental confirmed data that something strange is going on in the quantum world that appears to be observation and decision of atomic particles.
 
Last edited:
  • #198
"Yes, many things - including our selfishness, lust, hate, aggression, greed etc."

and why assert that these are thus due to God?.. you proced by saying:

"Whether it worked 'by clockwork' or not, God supposedly made the entire system,"

If the systems were made in clockwork fashion, then God is at fault, but if it is not, then one can't even say indirectly the faults of the system are actually a result of God, the responce to what you say next may present a philosophical reason as to why...

"including the nature of the ones who supposedly spoiled it. If he wanted it to remain as a paradise, why did he give 'freewill' to a bunch of flawed creatures? That's just irresponsible."

If God did not give us freewill, then we are simply a bunch of worthless -zombie like - machines, with great limitations, it is quite possible that we are a machines of sorts,eg our genes play are major part: but you fail to note that if we have freewill we could of been "created" perfect, and that we had the potential, without an external infulence - but not nesscerly exluding it, to chose to do Good or Evil, and even make our own defintions of this. Your comment basicly is attempting to argue against a christian theology - which is fair enough, but in doing so ignores other aspects of it.

"Imagine a future scenario where a scientist genetically engineered a population of intelligent creatures and then disappeared"

the scenario is already grossly incorrect, very few christians believe that God created a system and then just let it be, even may argument does not exclude this, and was in fact just to highlight that the "universe" NOW does not need its created after the point of creation and external to time.

Most xtains hold that God still plays a role in some form or anther in ever ourselfs, has a form of guide, or even throw science means, and finally by ways that we can not know of - after all God is supose to be transcedent so one can't measure all of Gods "acts". so the last two points can be used together, though not at the same time and in the same context and measure.

"leaving only rumours that he even existed and a whole range of 'rulebooks' none of which were unambiguously authorised by him, and unsurprisingly members of the population had different ideas"

the point about many people having different ideas is somewhat worthless, for starts YES ok its true, but with this great diversity there are SOME convergence of ideas, and simlairties! also I don't claim that I can thus understand God, may understand certian aspects in some context, but that's very different so i would expect to see this, and Finally culture would colour my veiw (yes this can swing both ways)



"about whether he existed or what he was or which rules were right and there was violence and terrible battles. The responsibility for creating that situation would be with the scientist."

or maybe the created "objects" responsiblity may dwell in the passage not the end points or the distinations themselfs.


"When, as a species, could we have chosen this?"

we didnt, it was already placed within the what was to be created, we did not have full freewill, I didnt have a choice to be born. but that doesn't mean I thus have no freewill.


"In the Garden of Eden? There is no eidence of such a time."

I don't mean to be rude, but frist I stated that not to take the bible lituerally then you ask me a question that assumes a sort of bible fundermentalist veiw, in short your applying fundermentalist reasoning or interprations to a non-fundermentalist arguement!


has for the Garden of eden,hit the books! while it is true that an eden in the biblical sense, there is no evidence - eden probably in some form of anther did exist, for example Adam was a word from pre-sumerian myths. and probably orginated from ubadian culture, and if I recall means fertile settlement on the plain - of something like that.

"Our ancestors back in the Pre-Cambrian era? If you believe in evolution. Or another time? Did we have freewill and face divine judgement when we were slimy amphibians crawling on the mudbanks and fighting over mates and food?"

Did I say that our precusors had freewill no!, rather freewill EVOLVED out of the "natural world", and has I regard natural has not nesscerly exclusive oppostite form theism, those not exclusively for I have no problem with this.

you simply pushing may argument to the extremme, if you want to believe even for that matter "WE" are some kind of pre-cambrian/cambrian worm then that's your lookout, sure your not claiming it but,it begs the question has to why bring it up. the WE is reffering to a retro-respect look at the "development" of life, and that freewill etc develop, and so simply looking AT one point of time, is a rigid look at the universe, and only a narrow minded look has to If there is a God, why not create a system that yes, we could be at the "top" but may also still develop, yet we were NOT the only "objectve", in which case all the metozia that are now extinct, we also an objective.


and before one says that this is a hallmark of a sloppy worker, it most certianly is not, a sloppy worker is one that does something and the work he does comes out badly respective of the object, Evil and what not, while ruins the work, is not at fault of a sloopy worker, has described above.
 
Last edited:
  • #199
The following is a quote from an MIT physicist who is now well known about the subject at hand.

There are any number of unanswerable, uncomfortable questions a person can ask, but the first one, the question from which all other questions are descended, is "Why is there an 'is'?" Why is there existence in the first place? In our fascination with life's origin and evolution, we bypass this most fundamental of conundrums. Does the very fact of existence in itself provide proof that some metaphysical non-thing. perhaps even the Godly, some undefined whatever-it-is, produced the physical by transcending it?

If we consider the finite aspects of the world we see around us, the limited nature of the time, space and matter from which we are constructed, the answer is certainly yes. Some non-thing, above or outside of the physical, must have preceded our universe or has our universe embedded in it.

But what is the material world, that which frames the puzzle of our existence? Why even bother with the existence of empty space, or even time? The basic enigma is not whether we evolved from apes or not, but why is there "being" in the first place? The very existence of existence is mind boggling. Yet we are so much a part of existence that we take it for granted—it's a "given," to use a scientific term. But step back from the subjectivity and think about it. What caused the Big Bang? What caused existence? What is existence?

"We must form a conception of the existence of the Creator according to our capacities; that is, we must have a knowledge of metaphysics (the science of a Creator), which can only be acquired after the study of physics; for the science of physics is closely connected with metaphysics and must even precede it in the course of studies. Therefore, the Almighty commenced the Bible with the description of the creation, that is, with physical science."

One might conceive of a science without religion, but it is an oxymoron to conceive of religion without science. Revelation and nature are the two aspects of one creation. Yet some two hundred and fifty years ago, the idea that science might have something to add to our understanding of spirituality was so anathema to the religious establishments that his book was burned by the religions of that time.

Some 250 years ago, a great philosopher taught that when the 'blueprint of the universe' came into the world it split into two parts. Only one part was revealed directly, the prophetic experience. The other part was hidden in the wisdoms of nature and the time will come, he said, when those hidden wisdoms will be discovered, revealing aspects of this 'blueprint' never before understood. That time has come. The hidden wisdoms of nature and science are being discovered. At the turn of the century, a physics professor would have lost tenure on the spot if caught teaching the concept that matter in all its forms of solids, liquids and gases was actually condensed energy. What hokum it would have seemed! Then came Einstein, relativity and E = mc^2, the theory that matter, m, intrinsically represents a specific amount of energy, E. And the type of matter was immaterial. As bizarre as it seems, a gram of rose petals and a gram of uranium contain identical amounts of energy. The constant in the equation, c^2 is the speed of light squared or multiplied by itself. It is a massive value, telling us that even a tiny amount of matter contains a huge quantity of latent energy. Having personally witnessed the detonation of six nuclear weapons. I suggest that we pray for peace. The fractions of a gram of matter converted into energy during those tests turned the mountain on which I stood into a quivering Jello-like substance.

In 1923, almost a decade after Einstein published his general relativity theory (no longer a theory, of course: now it is a law), the French physicist Louis de Broglie introduced an idea that was even more bizarre in its assertions than Einstein's claim that matter really was a form of energy.

De Broglie claimed that all matter has related to it a wave length and a frequency of that wave, a certain number of wave cycles per second. Not only had humanity learned that matter was not matter, we now had to believe that everything is a wave. Everything—you and I included. Seventy years of experiments have sustained both Einstein's and de Broglie's preposterous, counter intuitive claims.

The floor upon which you stand and the bedrock that supports a skyscraper are 99.999% empty space. What we perceive as solid matter is actually de Broglie's waves separated by open space, made impermeable by invisible, immaterial fields of force that somehow pervade the space. The world simply is not as it seems. A superficial reading of nature finds differentiation and disparate entities—stars and stones and bottled water and even life and death. Reading that same nature at a deeper level reveals that it's all a manifestation of a single underlying unity. I'm on our balcony. The afternoon Jerusalem sun is filtering through the yellow-green finger leaves of a eucalyptus tree planted a century ago to mark the property line. De Broglie tells me the leaves and the light are one. Not poetically—though that also—but physically, they are one.

It took humanity millennia before an Einstein discovered that, as bizarre as it may seem, matter is actually condensed energy. It may take a while longer for us to discover that there is some non-thing even more fundamental than energy that forms the basis of energy. In the words of John Archibald Wheeler, the renowned former president of the American Physical Society, recipient of the Einstein Award and Princeton professor of physics, underlying all existence is an idea, the "bit" of information that gives rise to the "it" of matter.

The substructure of all existence, we suddenly realize, is totally ethereal, an idea, wisdom. Or in Hebrew emet — an all encompassing reality. Emet is the ultimate building block from which all we see and feel is constructed. Just as the secondary substructure of all matter is something as ethereal as energy, as per Einstein's fantastic insight, so, the primary substructure of energy is still more elusive. Existence is the expression of an idea, an eternal consciousness made tangible. We are the idea of a Creator.

If we can discover that idea, we will have ascertained not only the basis for the unity that underlies all existence, but most important, the source of that unity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #200


Originally posted by Rader
I would tend to argee with you if we were posting 500 years ago, but today we have direct observation of these things and experimental confirmed data that something strange is going on in the quantum world that appears to be observation and decision of atomic particles.


This line of argumentation is no longer making progress. To simplify my position, I will only state this. You see certain observed behaviour in the quantum world and attribute this to something you consider self-aware. This is a position that, as far as I've seen and know, is only held by you. I and, AFAIK, the rest of the physicists engaged in the field have interpreted the evidence differently. This makes your claim extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.
 
  • #201


Originally posted by radagast
This line of argumentation is no longer making progress. To simplify my position, I will only state this. You see certain observed behaviour in the quantum world and attribute this to something you consider self-aware. This is a position that, as far as I've seen and know, is only held by you. I and, AFAIK, the rest of the physicists engaged in the field have interpreted the evidence differently. This makes your claim extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.

Radagast you make assumptions that only you and the rest of the world's physicists are somehow in possession of truths which also have no supporting evidence. The seemingly inconsistent quantum particle actions have the audacity to challenge you and a few other's long held preconceived realities. There are a number of respected physicists whose redundant experimentation and observation of quantum particle activity which hints at independent wisdom needs to be explained.

"As far as you know" no one has the right to question your own long held theories as fact. As you say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence. The supporting evidence has been duplicated by many independent reputable researchers who only make observations.

Single Slit: when a particle stream, whether light or matter, is reduced to where only one particle at a time passes through a single slit, then, after a number of particles have passed through and hit the target, a centralized grouping is found on the impact screen.

Multiple Slits: However, when a similar reduced particle-stream is passed through two or more parallel slits, a characteristic diffraction pattern develops on the impact surface. This indicates the presence of wave interference. Thus, both light radiation and matter particles have wave characteristics, even when only one particle passes through the diffraction grating at a time.
In terms of particle-wave theory, this indicates that after passing through the diffraction grating, the particle’s path must be affected by wave interference, from its own wave. As the particle passes through a slit, its associated wave front, in passing through adjacent slits, creates wave interference thus, affecting the path of the particle, and resulting in a diffraction pattern on the target.

This reinforces the premise of the wave’s physical nature. Specifically, it indicates the wave front has a degree of independence from its source-particle, and, objects in its path can affect the form of the wave front. (In other words, the wave may be reflected, refracted, or diffracted.)Generally stated, the particle-wave may be primarily wave-like – when the particle’s path is directed by its associated wave; or, particle-like – when the path of the particle-wave is directed by the path of the particle.

The more authentic illustration of the physical world became possible only when the ego-centric concept of objective and universal human perception was abandoned.
 

Attachments

  • image003.gif
    image003.gif
    1.3 KB · Views: 369
  • #202
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.

With the observed behaviour is more being simple supporting the current explanation, compared to your SAS model, (when including all the implications of a self-aware quantum particle) Occams razor would choose the current model.

If your SAS model was that compelling, then I'm sure you would have more adherents than now. But I'm sure you are right and the rest world is wrong, an unrecognized genius that will be lauded long after you are dead...
 
Last edited:
  • #203
Originally posted by radagast
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.

With the observed behaviour is more being simple supporting the current explanation, compared to your SAS model, (when including all the implications of a self-aware quantum particle) Occams razor would choose the current model.

If your SAS model was that compelling, then I'm sure you would have more adherents than now. But I'm sure you are right and the rest world is wrong, an unrecognized genius that will be lauded long after you are dead...

Please forgive me for being so bold as to question your current generally accepted wholly physical model. As you have stated, "I usually have a higher standard for wisdom than that, but that's just me."

For your information the Self-Aware Substructure model is not mine. The Principle of Parsimony might well choose your current physical model but the SAS model actually appears to be the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, one that requires the fewest leaps of logic.

Because you and AFAIK find current physical theories with absolute certainty, you may also be found to be the true genius of all time. How many great physicists’ work went unrecognized by the current theorists of their day?

Few people have the wisdom to prefer the criticism that would do them good, to the praise that deceives them.

ATTRIBUTION: François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld
 
  • #204
Originally posted by onycho
For your information the Self-Aware Substructure model is not mine. The Principle of Parsimony might well choose your current physical model but the SAS model actually appears to be the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, one that requires the fewest leaps of logic.

Unless our definitions of self aware differ, self aware involves consciousness. Consciousness requires sensory mechanisms, the ability to think and reason (to some degree) just to be able to make decisions, and, argueably, memory.

This is the baggage introduced into this debate when quantum entities are said to be self-aware.

This is not simplest. When I say simplest, with regard to Occam, it always includes all that is implied by such statements.

To say "God did it" would be the simplest explanation for the universe, as long as questions that arise when examining "god" don't arise.

I apologize for my earlier sarcasm. It wasn't warranted, my irritation level was a bit high due to other causes.
 
  • #205
Originally posted by radagast

Unless our definitions of self aware differ, self aware involves consciousness. Consciousness requires sensory mechanisms, the ability to think and reason (to some degree) just to be able to make decisions, and, argueably, memory.

This is the baggage introduced into this debate when quantum entities are said to be self-aware.


I also apologize for being impudent in my last response. But I don't believe I referred to the fact that quantum entities are said to be self-aware but simply that this phenomenon appeared to be present when found by different independent investigators. Consciousness, memory and all associated mechanisms you mentioned might even be suggested in an SAS model which could account for the possibility that all the particles in the universe have an ability to instantly communicate with one another no matter the distance between them.

This is not simplest. When I say simplest, with regard to Occam, it always includes all that is implied by such statements.

Actually the pure simplicity of such SAS activity would explain a great many nano particle and atom events that currently remain statistically impossible.

Example: The inexplicable creation of a double helix arrangement of four base elements Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. A seemingly innate ability for these elements to replicate on a consistent basis and with such complexity that all life forms on this planet use as a base model. Mathematically what are the odds that the original formation that DNA occurred by pure chance during the entire time span of this universe since the moment of a Big Bang event?

To say "God did it" would be the simplest explanation for the universe, as long as questions that arise when examining "god" don't arise.

I'm not certain why "a god" would necessarily be the simplest explanation for the universe or for the physical laws of the universe. The SAS model does not necessitate a Creator when all one has is experimental observations of the apparent self-aware nature in quantum entities.

I apologize for my earlier sarcasm. It wasn't warranted, my irritation level was a bit high due to other causes.

No problem...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #206
I don't see this debate going anywhere so I will withdraw. Our positions are just too extreme, with respect to each other.

From my point of view, you are finding a small quartz crystal, deducing a jeweler made this crystal, then coming up with names for his children and wife. As I say, my point of view.

To me, the unexplained is better than multiplying entities (reasons), without bound nor supporting evidence, for the purpose of explaining the unexplained.
 
Last edited:
  • #207
Originally posted by agnostictheist
and why assert that these are thus due to God?.. you proced by saying:
...If the systems were made in clockwork fashion, then God is at fault, but if it is not, then one can't even say indirectly the faults of the system are actually a result of God, the responce to what you say next may present a philosophical reason as to why...

God made the system
God gave man all his nature including destructive aspects
God gave man freewill
The system produces a lot of suffering, etc
Whose fault could it possibly be apart from God's?
If he intentionally let the system get out of his control leading to a lot of problems that's still his responsibility. Why can't you see that?
Not only that, but He is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, so he has absolute control whether he asserts it or not. And he already knows what will happen (this contradicts the idea that man has freewill by the way)

If God did not give us freewill, then we are simply a bunch of worthless -zombie like - machines, with great limitations, it is quite possible that we are a machines of sorts,eg our genes play are major part:

This is an assumption. what do you think freewill is? Your idea of 'absolute' and 'physical' freewill seems naive.

but you fail to note that if we have freewill we could of been "created" perfect, and that we had the potential, without an external infulence - but not nesscerly exluding it, to chose to do Good or Evil, and even make our own defintions of this. Your comment basicly is attempting to argue against a christian theology - which is fair enough, but in doing so ignores other aspects of it.

A perfect being with freewill would freely act according to its nature. Your idea of freewill makes no sense. There is no external influence of evil. If evil exists it exists by God's permission or action.

the scenario is already grossly incorrect, very few christians believe that God created a system and then just let it be, even may argument does not exclude this, and was in fact just to highlight that the "universe" NOW does not need its created after the point of creation and external to time.

An increasing number of Christians believe this. Anyway, if he intervenes every now and again he does so ineffectually - the system is already 'imperfect' acording to your own moral standards. He lety it get destructively out of control. He set it up, knowing that it must be corrupted under the nature he gave it.

Most xtains hold that God still plays a role in some form or anther in ever ourselfs, has a form of guide, or even throw science means, and finally by ways that we can not know of - after all God is supose to be transcedent so one can't measure all of Gods "acts". so the last two points can be used together, though not at the same time and in the same context and measure.

Its just a big fairy tale. I'm amazed sometimes that people in first world countries in the 21st century still believe this sort of mythology (often in a quite literal way)... then again sometimes when I talk to people it doesn't surprise me that much.

the point about many people having different ideas is somewhat worthless, for starts YES ok its true, but with this great diversity there are SOME convergence of ideas, and simlairties! also I don't claim that I can thus understand God, may understand certian aspects in some context, but that's very different so i would expect to see this, and Finally culture would colour my veiw (yes this can swing both ways).

Well, whether you should live a meek life and believe that Jesus is the messiah to get to heaven or whether you should fight to death and die a glorious on the battlefield to join Odin in the halls of Valhalla seems like quite a fundamental difference. What they do have in common is that they are both untestable belief systems with myths that enforce social control.

or maybe the created "objects" responsiblity may dwell in the passage not the end points or the distinations themselfs.

HE made them what they are.
HE gave them freewill - ie. the ability to act freely according to their nature.
HE knew what that nature was and (in God's case at least) must have known what they would do.
HE left them to it (apart from punishing them with plagues and floods for not doing what he 'intended')

I don't mean to be rude, but frist I stated that not to take the bible lituerally then you ask me a question that assumes a sort of bible fundermentalist veiw, in short your applying fundermentalist reasoning or interprations to a non-fundermentalist arguement!

So you pick and choose which bits of this religion you like then? You'll have to explain what your particular interpretation says about this topic then.

Did I say that our precusors had freewill no!, rather freewill EVOLVED out of the "natural world", and has I regard natural has not nesscerly exclusive oppostite form theism, those not exclusively for I have no problem with this.

So not only is freewill a matter of degree, but we have genes for freewill. Oh this is getting more and more funny. What is freewill and how can we have genes for it? The common interpretation of freewill of theists is that it is a property that allows being to act independently of determining factors. Those factors include the atoms of our bodies. So freewill must be a metaphysical property. Now please explain how we can have genes for a metaphysical property.

you simply pushing may argument to the extremme, if you want to believe even for that matter "WE" are some kind of pre-cambrian/cambrian worm then that's your lookout, sure your not claiming it but,it begs the question has to why bring it up. the WE is reffering to a retro-respect look at the "development" of life,

huh?!

and that freewill etc develop, and so simply looking AT one point of time, is a rigid look at the universe, and only a narrow minded look has to If there is a God, why not create a system that yes, we could be at the "top" but may also still develop, yet we were NOT the only "objectve", in which case all the metozia that are now extinct, we also an objective.

huh?!


and before one says that this is a hallmark of a sloppy worker, it most certianly is not, a sloppy worker is one that does something and the work he does comes out badly respective of the object, Evil and what not, while ruins the work, is not at fault of a sloopy worker, has described above. [/B]

Your argument makes no sense. God (supposedly all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing so he has no excuses) created the initial situation. There can be no evil force which is independent of his influence. The system got messed up. He cannot blame the ignorant, stupid, imperfect creatures he made for messing it up - only he has ultimate responsibility.

Your ideas really don't make any sense, but you insist on believing in them. Well, good luck to you.
 
  • #208
Originally posted by radagast
I don't see this debate going anywhere so I will withdraw. Our positions are just too extreme, with respect to each other.

From my point of view, you are finding a small quartz crystal, deducing a jeweler made this crystal, then coming up with names for his children and wife. As I say, my point of view.

To me, the unexplained is better than neither multiplying entities (reasons), without bound nor supporting evidence, for the purpose of explaining the unexplained.

You have every right to withdraw from a debate you find futile.

Actually your personal perspective that the 'unexplained is better' than attempting to propose unsupported reasons or entities are a form of retreating back to those theories which are currently thought to be valid.

Personally I find it interesting to conceptualize unsupportable alternatives to the vast amount of accumulated evidence which may or may not be valid.

Take care...
 
  • #209
"God gave man all his nature including destructive aspects"

you see this is why I suggested to to be familar with "christian" variants, and not to sinmply state something that argees with you,
most christian systems me inc, do not argee with this, rather they had the POTENTIAL to "develop these", yet you simply want to restate the same thing simply dressed differently.

"God gave man freewill"

Yes


"The system produces a lot of suffering"

Again same problem, some doctrines hold that suffering is merely Gods way of teaching us, or making us even more perfect, that we started from pefection, and again more orders of perfect. - not that I agree with this doctrine, but it goes to show you why you must be more specfic rather than asserting a particlar doctrine, then appearing from your body of text to be the only one... much like you treated "atheism".

I have already addressed on this question is somewhat begging the question. the question you phased assumes some framwork that God created a system that will creat suffering.


"Whose fault could it possibly be apart from God's?"

God's... sadly those that your axioms are NOT consistent with many theological doctrines - some yes!


"If he intentionally let the system get out of his control leading to a lot of problems that's still his responsibility. Why can't you see that?"

I can, which brings me to the point why couldn't you see what you wrote is a different theological/philosophical argumentm to mine and much of christians, I am not asking you to accept mine, or discard yours, but i do disagree with your one. on the basis that your theology is ignorant.

"Not only that, but He is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, so he has absolute control whether he asserts it or not. And he already knows what will happen (this contradicts the idea that man has freewill by the way)"

by the way it doesnt, God is supose to be transcedent right? in order to condradict freewill our omnipotent, omniscient God would have to have some context in "time"... but he DOESNT!

While God has "absolute control" is doesn't mean he thus "controls" our freewill. to a christian.. and this is why before you push rather fancy words around you should be aware of there speical context, God can only be defined by "him-self" - thus God is all powerful in accordance to his nature.


"This is an assumption. what do you think freewill is? Your idea of 'absolute' and 'physical' freewill seems naive."

what are you talking about, "physical freewill" i never stated freewill is physical!

"A perfect being with freewill would freely act according to its nature. Your idea of freewill makes no sense."

Yet above you seemed to ask what is my defintion of freewill and now you state it makes no sense... that's a bit odd.

"There is no external influence of evil. If evil exists it exists by God's permission or action."

please support this?, by the way "external evil" was a contigent, not a nesscery.



"So you pick and choose which bits of this religion you like then? You'll have to explain what your particular interpretation says about this topic then."

this will be interesting:


"So not only is freewill a matter of degree,"

No I said freewill as a matter of degree to it not freewill is a matter of degree. yes there is measure and amount to freewill but freewill but stating thus freewill is the above is wrong.

"but we have genes for freewill."


I never said that, but has you say...

"Oh this is getting more and more funny."

Yes it is.. Now show me were i stated that there are genes that generate freewill...? provided reason has to why you conclused this:
 
Last edited:
  • #210
I see no proof though of evolution. The fact that chimps and humans hold similarities is no different than 2 models of cars designed by the same team.

With all mankind’s "intelligent" intervention s/he has still not been able to reproduce evolution of one species to another. A dog can be mated with a wolf but if you did succeed in mating a wolf with a chimp it would be a hybrid. Mules are a hybrid of horses and donkeys. How do you think they make pip less oranges?

Darwin disproved and genetic science confirmed that the then popular theory was that God miraculously individually created each baby.

Geologist’s disproved the idea that the world was created in 7 literal days. Interestingly the bible doesn’t portray these as literal days because Genesis 2:4 says “In the day that the LORD God made the Earth and the heavens” indicating that in this context the meaning of the word “day” is a time period.

Darwin and evolutionists have done much to enlighten the world and give a solid argument against what used to be a single minded belief. It seems a pity that evolution is now considered by the media and schools as a fact without any real evidence.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
531
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
780
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
14
Views
340
Replies
4
Views
728
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
443
  • General Math
Replies
11
Views
1K
Back
Top