Logical proofs for God

neuro-praxis

Brief response for the moment (the clock ticks towards my literature exam!):

Fysh:

I was not saying that something that is impossible is actual: I was saying that impossibility exists in the realm of actuality. Basically, the idea of impossibility must belong with actuality, because it cannot be in the realm of the possible if it is in fact, impossible. Anything that is impossible can only exist in the idea of concept and as such, it exists with actuality. It is an actual concept: it is an impossibility.

As for the realm of quantum physics: I can't comment because I haven't a clue. I'll take your word for it.

You ask where is the evidence that things do not self actualise. Look to physics. You cannot give an example of anything that has self-actualised. Whereas everything that I could possibly point to in the universe that exists was actualised not through itself but through an external entity not identical to itself.

Manchegan: can you demonstrate HOW exactly it is a "poorly disguised refashioning" of the Russel Paradox, as opposed to just stating that it is? Perhaps it is, but I cannot for the life of me see how it is!

Memnoch: if you are proposing the question If God created the universe then who created God? then we've got to start moving into the realm of temporality.

(By the way, there is no contradiction in the statement "God created the universe". You may find that this is not true - but there is no contradiction inherent.)

It is perfectly possible for a causeless event to occur in the realm of atemporailty. Unfortunately, we do not live in any such realm.

Manchegan

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Manchegan: can you demonstrate HOW exactly it is a "poorly disguised refashioning" of the Russel Paradox, as opposed to just stating that it is? Perhaps it is, but I cannot for the life of me see how it is!

The paradox demonstrates that concepts such as the Universal Set (the "all that is" vs. "all other things" in your argument) as allowed in naïve set theory are bogus constructs, logically inherently flawed. There's a reason you weren't taught ∞-times tables at school - because

∞ + 1 = ∞
∞ + 2 = ∞

Not very handy. To put it another way, when the Pope visited Ireland, a third of the population attended his "gig" at Phoenix Park. From this, it was calculated that the entire population of the world could fit in Louth - that is, until you consider people being born, dying, standing in hedges etc.

Fysh

neuro-praxis wrote:

I was not saying that something that is impossible is actual: I was saying that impossibility exists in the realm of actuality. Basically, the idea of impossibility must belong with actuality, because it cannot be in the realm of the possible if it is in fact, impossible. Anything that is impossible can only exist in the idea of concept and as such, it exists with actuality. It is an actual concept: it is an impossibility.

But that cannot work - because by that exact same reasoning, something that is possible but not actual (ie not already part of p) is also part of actuality (by virtue of being a concept different to an impossible concept only in that it can be realised, in the right conditions). By your argument above, all non-realised possibilities are therefore part of actuality (since they exist as a concept).

Not to mention that, if you accept the notion of multiverse theory, the right conditions for a concept may well involve a universe with different fundamental constants, which would whittle down the list of things which are totally impossible.

neuro-praxis wrote:

You ask where is the evidence that things do not self actualise. Look to physics. You cannot give an example of anything that has self-actualised. Whereas everything that I could possibly point to in the universe that exists was actualised not through itself but through an external entity not identical to itself.

Um, what? Tell me some tangible physical way in which I can distinguish things that have been self-actualised from those that haven't, and I'll find you some proof one way or the other. What you are saying is basically that I should believe in something that we have no direct evidence for, because without it things would be different - but there is no way that we can ever test this by removing the deity in question. At which point, I have two things to say:

1) Read about Occam's Razor.

2) Referencing once again quantum physics (I'm not deliberately picking this because you don't know much about it, I just happen to have studied it in some depth) - contrary to what you have asserted, it is possible for matter to appear from (apparently) nowhere (although in effect it is still simply a case of conservation of energy). Read about Virtual Particles if you're interested. Another thing you might find interesting to read about is electron tunneling, although I can't find any easily-readable pages about it. Basically this is an aspect of quantum physics by which something which is classically impossible becomes possible for just long enough to happen. Rigid definitions of what is or is not possible do not match up to our current understanding of the universe, which further undermines the validity of using them as concepts or starting points in logical proofs.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Memnoch: if you are proposing the question If God created the universe then who created God? then we've got to start moving into the realm of temporality.

(By the way, there is no contradiction in the statement "God created the universe". You may find that this is not true - but there is no contradiction inherent.)

It is perfectly possible for a causeless event to occur in the realm of atemporailty. Unfortunately, we do not live in any such realm.

How do you know God does exist in such a realm? Again I direct you to Occam's Razor - it simply doesn't make sense to assume something which, by its nature, will never be known to you and can never be tested. And assuming that God exists outside our universe in a conveniently atemporal region where all the rules we know don't apply is such a case.

Quite outside the semantic contradiction of God creating the universe, given that the general definition of universe is "everything there is". Does God create himself? If so, how? How can he go from a state of nothingness to existence, if he is actively triggering the process? This is where any attempt to use physics starts to fall apart, and you have two options - depending on whether you have faith or not, you can accept it or not. But there's nothing like conclusive proof either way, unfortunately.

OfflerCrocGod

neuro-praxis wrote:

Isn't anyone going to address the argument?

Your argument is a load of horse ****. I've addressed it.

neuro-praxis

Ok, I'll have another stab! But it is necessary to bear on mind that we don't start from the same premise (I argue for the existence that some things are knowable and you don't seem to agree) so we're not on the same page at all to begin with.

But that cannot work - because by that exact same reasoning, something that is possible but not actual (ie not already part of p) is also part of actuality (by virtue of being a concept different to an impossible concept only in that it can be realised, in the right conditions). By your argument above, all non-realised possibilities are therefore part of actuality (since they exist as a concept).

But, if something is an impossibility, how can it exist as part of the category "possible"? I realise that this element of the argument has gotten into trouble, but neither you nor I are offering a satisfactory solution, it would seem. It cannot be reconciled if impossibility remains in the equation. I guess that this is because of something is impossible it cannot belong in the realm of actual and possible at all. Which was the original standpoint. Anyway.

Not to mention that, if you accept the notion of multiverse theory, the right conditions for a concept may well involve a universe with different fundamental constants, which would whittle down the list of things which are totally impossible.

But...we can accept that a multiverse is a possibility, but we have no proof that it is actuality. Surely you agree?

Tell me some tangible physical way in which I can distinguish things that have been self-actualised from those that haven't, and I'll find you some proof one way or the other.

Ok, you don't seem to understand the term "self-actualise". I will try to explain it. I think that when you understand what it means, you will have to concede to at least this point.

Allow me to point out some things that did not self-actualise. The sandwich you ate for lunch. You. Your language. The chair you are sitting on. The table your computer rests on. Your computer. The software on your computer. The electrons firing in your brain. The clothes that you are wearing.

Things do not make themselves. They require a first cause.

I consulted a friend about quantum physics. I inquired whether quantum physics had reason to believe that some entities are self-actualising. He said no. He described,as you did, some experiments carried out at a subatomic level that had produced confusing results - for example, the one where a single beam of light shone at a subatomic level onto two surfaces, and the beam dividing in order to hit them both (excuse the crude paraphrasing, he broke these ideas down for my simple head). However, such confusing results does not affect the reality that nothing exists that produced itself.

I have read Occam's Razor (of course I have). It is a theory that supports the idea that nothing makes itself. If the simplest solution is the most likely, then surely the simplest solution for the existence of the universe is that something outside of the universe and not identical to the universe created it. Because that, surely, is the obvious answer.

Thanks for the link to virtual particles, fascinating stuff.. I then read the link on quantum electrodynamics and then about the Landau Pole, which you had referenced earlier. Then I read up on perturbation theory, which was probably the clincher in terms of interest. I struggled with the equations, but the explanations were good. However, I fail to see how quantum theory proves anything in terms of your argument? If anything, it supports mine, as it concerned with the behaviour of subatomic particles, that is to say, their causes and effects. In fact, we only know that virtual particles exist because we can see their effects.

How do you know God does exist in such a realm? Again I direct you to Occam's Razor - it simply doesn't make sense to assume something which, by its nature, will never be known to you and can never be tested.

You could listen to your own advice re the multiverse here!

You're right, we don't know that an atemporal realm exists, but it's not a physical realm that I am proposing. Along with all ideas of an omnipotent creator, we need to acknowledge that it must logically function outside of the constraints of time. But that's for another argument. That is to examine McTaggert and Einstein and Hawking and various other folks on the issue of temporality, and as such, contingency.

Does God create himself? If so, how? How can he go from a state of nothingness to existence, if he is actively triggering the process? This is where any attempt to use physics starts to fall apart, and you have two options - depending on whether you have faith or not, you can accept it or not. But there's nothing like conclusive proof either way, unfortunately.

This is the argument as referred to above. We can have this one out too, but it's another day's work.

By the way, I presented a cosmological argument for the existence of God, and as such, it still stands. I did not present a scientific argument for the existence of God, which cannot and will not ever exist. (And that it was not scientific was actually the disclaimer.)

Anyway: thanks Fysh for the insights. Can I suggest some reading for you: have a glance at the Wikipedia stuff on metaphysics and branch out to a few of the links. That's basically what I've been working with here on this argument...metaphysics. It's a brain bender.

I'd like to continue it sometime Fysh but for now, I am mid-exams and need to return to my studies. I'll definitely pop by the thread but I can't afford to give it any significant time. This is after all, just the internet.

Thanks especially to all the default atheists who offered no arguments but lots of blinkered opinions and the occasional flame. It's good that you guys are so comfortable in your beliefs.

Fysh

neuro-praxis wrote:

But, if something is an impossibility, how can it exist as part of the category "possible"? I realise that this element of the argument has gotten into trouble, but neither you nor I are offering a satisfactory solution, it would seem. It cannot be reconciled if impossibility remains in the equation. I guess that this is because of something is impossible it cannot belong in the realm of actual and possible at all. Which was the original standpoint. Anyway.

Well, put it this way. Possibility or impossibility is a determination of whether a concept can be realised into the actual world. It is, basically, a boolean variable which determines whether our universe will accept the physical manifestation of a certain idea. If you are talking about p being things that exist in the form of physical manifestations, then everything that is not p must include all things that do not exist as physical manifestations. This puts not p firmly into the realm of the conceptual, but does not make any distinction between those concepts that can be realised, and those that can't. Your alternative seems to suggest that impossible concepts are, by virtue of being unable to have physical manifestations, already part of the physically manifested universe. At least, that's how I've understood it.

neuro-praxis wrote:

But...we can accept that a multiverse is a possibility, but we have no proof that it is actuality. Surely you agree?

I do agree. My point was that trying to build a logical argument based on the concepts of possibility and impossibility, when physics has been making some startling discoveries regarding how these concepts work in our universe (or multiverse) is to open oneself up to falling at the first hurdle by having invalid definitions.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Ok, you don't seem to understand the term "self-actualise". I will try to explain it. I think that when you understand what it means, you will have to concede to at least this point.

Allow me to point out some things that did not self-actualise. The sandwich you ate for lunch. You. Your language. The chair you are sitting on. The table your computer rests on. Your computer. The software on your computer. The electrons firing in your brain. The clothes that you are wearing.

Things do not make themselves. They require a first cause.

I disagree. Actions require a first cause, in the classical conception of the universe - the deterministic view which for the macroscopic interpretation of the universe is a satisfactory model. What you seem to be missing here is that causality is derivative from the law of conservation of energy. If you were able to map the chain of events from the start of the universe to its end (and that's already assuming that the notion of a starting point even applies, since we don't have any real evidence that our universe isn't either infinite or semi-infinite), you would see that all energy transfers could be accounted for, and that existence as we know it and all its physical subtleties really boil down energy transfers, from entities in excited states to entities in more stable states. We may be heading for the heat death of the universe, or we may be heading for the big cruch. We may be heading for something else entirely that doesn't fit any of our models, but the one thing so far that has held true for all our observations is that the conservation of energy holds. It's a bit bendy in places (such as the creation of virtual particles) but it can be accounted for. This is what leads to the causality that's the core of your self-actualising arguments. Now, physicists don't know what came before. As I've indicated earlier, we don't even know if discussing the concept of before and after in terms of our universe/multiverse makes any sense; the idea may not map onto the reality in any way or form that can be understood by us. But calling it God is no better than calling it nothing - there's no proof other than word-play, and frankly a proof that ignores or bypasses looking at the universe is a pretty piss-poor one.

neuro-praxis wrote:

I consulted a friend about quantum physics. I inquired whether quantum physics had reason to believe that some entities are self-actualising. He said no. He described,as you did, some experiments carried out at a subatomic level that had produced confusing results - for example, the one where a single beam of light shone at a subatomic level onto two surfaces, and the beam dividing in order to hit them both (excuse the crude paraphrasing, he broke these ideas down for my simple head). However, such confusing results does not affect the reality that nothing exists that produced itself.

I have read Occam's Razor (of course I have). It is a theory that supports the idea that nothing makes itself. If the simplest solution is the most likely, then surely the simplest solution for the existence of the universe is that something outside of the universe and not identical to the universe created it. Because that, surely, is the obvious answer.

Rubbish! How is it "the obvious answer"? Have you peeked outside? Do you have access to the secrets of the universe that have somehow eluded the rest of us? Why, apart from anything else, are you making assumptions about there even being an outside of the universe when you have no proof of this? You're assuming that the universe (everything there is, I remind you) has limitations - that it's only infinite on the inside, for want of a better phrase, and can be understood on normal day-to-day terms by just ignoring its size and scale.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Thanks for the link to virtual particles, fascinating stuff.. I then read the link on quantum electrodynamics and then about the Landau Pole, which you had referenced earlier. Then I read up on perturbation theory, which was probably the clincher in terms of interest. I struggled with the equations, but the explanations were good. However, I fail to see how quantum theory proves anything in terms of your argument? If anything, it supports mine, as it concerned with the behaviour of subatomic particles, that is to say, their causes and effects. In fact, we only know that virtual particles exist because we can see their effects.

I referenced quantum theory to show that the concept of possibility or impossibility that we use in a classical-physics or day to day sense does not work in a quantum view of the world, which in turn influences our macroscopic world. The only point of it was to suggest that possibility and impossibility don't really apply as concepts, and probability is the way to think about things. You'll note that I did point out that virtual particles are still part of the conservation of enerty. Which is what it's all about, really.


We will now take a short commercial break, because the boards post size limit is stopping me from posting everything in one go.

Fysh

We now return to your regularly scheduled posting.

neuro-praxis wrote:

You're right, we don't know that an atemporal realm exists, but it's not a physical realm that I am proposing. Along with all ideas of an omnipotent creator, we need to acknowledge that it must logically function outside of the constraints of time. But that's for another argument. That is to examine McTaggert and Einstein and Hawking and various other folks on the issue of temporality, and as such, contingency.

Well, yes, but the validity of an idea depends on the number of assumptions required for its discussion, as per Occam. Now, if you're saying that my options are either:

a)accept that the universe may be infinite or apparently infinite in size and infinite or semi-infinite in temporal concerns, and that not only might we never know its origin but it may not even have one,

or

b)accept without proof that the universe is finite in size from at least one perspective and contained within a greater space (superverse?) in which the laws of our universe do not hold, and also accept that within this superverse there exists one or more entities who are directly responsible for the creation of our universe, and also accept that the nature of this superverse and relevant entity or entities are such that they may be either infinite or in fact entirely unaffected by temporal concerns,

then at this point, it should be clear that God is just being used as a name for what we don't know. It's a case of "Well how can that work?" - how about "Well, God did it." Basically, explanation b is taking all the things we don't understand, imagining a creature with wonderful powers (that just happen to allow it to resolve or explain those things we can't understand), putting it somewhere that we can't see, and calling it God. It's really no different than saying "I haven't the faintest idea", except that if you have faith you'll believe there really is a creator. Now, call me Doubting Thomas if you like, but I'll hang on for some sort of proof before I accept that kind of idea.

neuro-praxis wrote:

By the way, I presented a cosmological argument for the existence of God, and as such, it still stands. I did not present a scientific argument for the existence of God, which cannot and will not ever exist. (And that it was not scientific was actually the disclaimer.)

Excuse me? Cosmological? Cosmology is the science of studying the cosmos - the universe. It's a subset of science. Besides which, your argument contains an attempt at cleverly wording a physical idea in such a way that one accepts God as the explanation for what we don't know. Which, really, is what God has always been. It doesn't "still stand" because as I've repeatedly pointed out, your starting points are invalid - possibility and impossibility are both aspects of probability. And, since your argument relies on dividing the two up and then working from attempting to construct links between actuality and probability, it is fallible.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Anyway: thanks Fysh for the insights. Can I suggest some reading for you: have a glance at the Wikipedia stuff on metaphysics and branch out to a few of the links. That's basically what I've been working with here on this argument...metaphysics. It's a brain bender.

Glad you found what I linked to interesting, and I'll certainly take a look. I don't promise it'll change my mind tho.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Thanks especially to all the default atheists who offered no arguments but lots of blinkered opinions and the occasional flame. It's good that you guys are so comfortable in your beliefs.

In fairness, default or not, atheists are still a minority worldwide. Last time I heard any stats on the matter, it was something less than 10% of the world population who didn't believe in any kind of higher being or power. And it's not like you can really claim that there's nobody blinkered, intolerant or lazy about their beliefs amongst the many and varied ranks of the faithful now, is it. If anything, going by numbers alone, your lot far outranks ours.

There are lazy atheists, and there are dedicated atheists. Just because someone doesn't jump at the chance of arguing with a believer about why believing or not believing is stupid or whatever, doesn't mean that person is a lazy atheist - if you're in any way serious about not believing in any god, do you know how many times this argument can come up? Have you ever had people ringing your doorbell asking you to renounce religion? I've had people of various faiths rining my doorbell asking me if I have faith, and to be honest with you - after the first couple of times where it seemed amusing to upset them with questions, it really wasn't worth the hassle. The main reason I got into this thread was because Slow Coach mentioned that belief in God was logical and I asked him to demonstrate how. Some of us are just damn tired of this whole idea.

neuro-praxis

Brief comment: cosmological in relation to the metaphysical. It's a branch of philosophy.

GuanYin

neuro-praxis wrote:

But, if something is an impossibility, how can it exist as part of the category "possible"? I realise that this element of the argument has gotten into trouble, but neither you nor I are offering a satisfactory solution, it would seem. It cannot be reconciled if impossibility remains in the equation. I guess that this is because of something is impossible it cannot belong in the realm of actual and possible at all. Which was the original standpoint. Anyway.

She may have a point here. If something, say, "an act of event" is possible or impossible it is to say it may or may not occur.

Until it is tested, it remains theoretical, after which point, it is proven either possible (the event or acts exists) or impossible (the event or act doesn't exist).

Now, to imply that an impossible event is possible phase space just because the notion of it exists is reaching a little.

However, if you are stating that actual and possible can't fall under the same space and this is flawed.

For anything possible, is, by definition above, a subset of actual phase space, that is to say, it is an un-proved actuality.

So For all actual events P=Not P does indeed hold true, if P=Actual and not P=possible.

But...we can accept that a multiverse is a possibility, but we have no proof that it is actuality. Surely you agree?

Again you confuse theory and possibility. These are not interchangable terms.

Allow me to point out some things that did not self-actualise. The sandwich you ate for lunch. You. Your language. The chair you are sitting on. The table your computer rests on. Your computer. The software on your computer. The electrons firing in your brain. The clothes that you are wearing.

Things do not make themselves. They require a first cause.

No, the components for these events could be deemed to have self-actualised. Proteins making many of what you described above seem to fold and form on there own accord.

While a chair may not form itself, the material (the structure of the proteins that make wood for instance) that it may be made from did. You have taken the analogy to the end product level, of course nature doesn't randomly form a chair or table, but could it fluke the components that allow them to exist?
It has been readily shown that many proteins can form randomly without cause.

As far as sub-atomics go, again, we are working with a very incomplete knowledge base that has some HUGE assumptions. While physics is the foundation of science, I don't believe its quite able to contribute solid argument for or againt philosophical questions such as this.

By the way, I presented a cosmological argument for the existence of God, and as such, it still stands. I did not present a scientific argument for the existence of God, which cannot and will not ever exist. (And that it was not scientific was actually the disclaimer.)

How can you be sure no scientific argument for or against the existance of God will exist? How could you ever prove this?

Thanks especially to all the default atheists who offered no arguments but lots of blinkered opinions and the occasional flame. It's good that you guys are so comfortable in your beliefs.

It must also be nice to know that you're not alone in the world.

neuro-praxis

Fysh: actions are certainly considered first causes, but what is the first cause of the one who causes that action? And what is the first cause of the cause of the one who caused that action? And so on backwards ad infinitum. Do you see what I am getting at?

I am not suggesting that an impossible event could enter the realm of possible - I'm talking about the realm of what is actual.

And I am not suggesting that possible and actual cannot be in the same category, but it is necessary to separate them into two categories for the purposes of understanding the difference between what is and what is not, but could potentially be.

Until it is tested, it remains theoretical, after which point, it is proven either possible (the event or acts exists) or impossible (the event or act doesn't exist).

No, possibility is potentiality, not existence.
Impossibility is the lack of potentiality, and as such, can only exist in theory.

How can you be sure no scientific argument for or against the existance of God will exist? How could you ever prove this?

Because in order for something to be scientifically proven, it has to be done so through experimentation. How can we scientifically prove metaphysical theories?

It must also be nice to know that you're not alone in the world.

Perhaps someday you too can know that joy.

And now I bid you all adieu, no matter what else comes up here I will resist the temptation to reply. I have three more days of exams and I'll be damned if I mess them up because of my net addiction!

NinjaBart

yeah right you keep posting stuff like that but you still keep coming back.

transperson

formal logic based on a particular world veiw, while an affective tool and discriptive device, has pit falls and apparent internal inconsistances [eg russells paradox] and i do not accept that it can be used to prove if god,a source,bearded dude,ultimate reality actually exists. however intuitive knowledge i think might be out there.but having not experienced it myself i remain a sceptic, if an optimistic one.

so the whole arguement [logical proof for god]was from my view doomed before it started.

jst read this tread today it was frustrating to read as it is clear that the logical argument is nonsence but to express that in the terms used in the arguement is difficult and the arguementation of the defender can be used to throw the critic off, blinding him in a mass of confused concepts, wordplay, and assumptions.

so well done fysh for arguing the case. it can take time to show that rubbish is rubbish when it is disguised in the cloak of rationality.

GuanYin

neuro-praxis wrote:

And I am not suggesting that possible and actual cannot be in the same category, but it is necessary to separate them into two categories for the purposes of understanding the difference between what is and what is not, but could potentially be.

so just for the record, when you said this:

To say p = not p is a very clear contraditiction, therefore we know that possibility is not sufficient for actuality.

you meant that they can be in the same category? Wow you're use of english is pretty liberal or just plain fickle.

No, possibility is potentiality, not existence.
Impossibility is the lack of potentiality, and as such, can only exist in theory.

Wha? Is this you arguing with semantics again? Ok change the meaning it doesn't make your point any less wrong.

Because in order for something to be scientifically proven, it has to be done so through experimentation. How can we scientifically prove metaphysical theories?

Its quite conceited to believe that we're playing with all the evidence and means to examine the question right now. However, should sufficient evidence arise to eliminate the need for god as defined by the bible as creator of all, then I believe that could be a start.

Perhaps someday you too can know that joy.

I hope I never end up in such an intellectually isolated bubble, I wouldn't think life worth living.

And now I bid you all adieu, no matter what else comes up here I will resist the temptation to reply. I have three more days of exams and I'll be damned if I mess them up because of my net addiction!

Is that a revolving door you're leaving by then?

Memnoch

neuro-praxis wrote:

Memnoch: if you are proposing the question If God created the universe then who created God? then we've got to start moving into the realm of temporality.

no thats not really the question i'm proposing. The question i'm proposing, is that IF the basis for accepting the existance of a god is that THERE MUST BE a god to have created the universe, then that logic is self defeating.

Because you claim that the universe could not create itself. Therefore something must have created it, and that something must be god. This is self-contradictory. For if the universe requires god to create it, then god must require another god to create it, and that creater god must require ANOTHER god to create it, and so on and so forth, in an infinite string of gods.

The only way you can have a "starting point" is based on belief, not on actual scientific theory or logic. Its a very simple arguement, there is no need to try and complicate the issue with semantics.

Fysh

neuro-praxis wrote:

Fysh: actions are certainly considered first causes, but what is the first cause of the one who causes that action? And what is the first cause of the cause of the one who caused that action? And so on backwards ad infinitum. Do you see what I am getting at?

Yep. And as I said, using God as an answer is just another way of saying "I don't know". Not to mention that, unless you start ascribing convenient qualities to God, you end up with a situation where you need a god to create the god who created the god who created the universe, ad nauseum. "Turtles all the way down", to paraphrase Terry Pratchett.

neuro-praxis wrote:

I am not suggesting that an impossible event could enter the realm of possible - I'm talking about the realm of what is actual.
<snipped>
Impossibility is the lack of potentiality, and as such, can only exist in theory.

You have previously suggested that impossible events are a part of the realm of the actual. Here you state they can only exist in theory. But all possibilities which have not been realised only exist in theory - otherwise they are part of the realm of the actual, and you seem to be discussing only those parts of possibility that do not overlap.

Considered as a Venn diagram, what you'd get is circle representing the actual - things that physically exist(call it A), contained in a bigger circle representing the possible - things that could physically exist (call it O, since you used P), and then you'd have another circle outside O representing the impossible - things that cannot physically exist (call it I). A, I, and O exist as concepts - what we're doing is splitting them according to certain aspects of those concepts. To take, as you've suggested, everything that is not A gives you all unrealised or unrealisable possibilities but no realised possibilities. Thus, since there are impossibilities as well as possibilities outside of A, one cannot say that the physical existence of something is related to its possibility, because there are some possible and impossible concepts that do not physically exist (not P from your definition),, but also some that do exist - so the only real conclusion that one should draw from the fact that there are possibilities which are not physically realised is that possibility is not necessarily sufficient for physical actuality.

It's still nothing like conclusive, though. I mean, you haven't demonstrated that actualisation is required - really what you're doing is using the problem inherent in a classically-deterministic universe (ie how did it start?) and saying that God must be the answer, the divine engine-starter. It's an answer, but certainly not the only one.

Crucifix

I don't get why our universe must be temporal (a caused event etc)?
I mean from a scientific point of view the universe will never cease to be (conservation laws yadda-yadda). So if it goes on for an infinite amount of time, couldn't it have been going on for an infinite amount of time?

carl_

transperson wrote:

jst read this tread today it was frustrating to read as it is clear that the logical argument is nonsence but to express that in the terms used in the arguement is difficult and the arguementation of the defender can be used to throw the critic off, blinding him in a mass of confused concepts, wordplay, and assumptions.

so well done fysh for arguing the case. it can take time to show that rubbish is rubbish when it is disguised in the cloak of rationality.

I agree. I was thinking of going through the 'proof' piece by piece but it looked like too much work.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Dr. Thomas AF Kelly is the dean of philosophy at NUI Maynooth. An argument that refutes his has not to date been found.

Has anyone bothered though?

as for Pascal.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Before entering into the criticisms of the Wager, it is only fair to note, as is less widely known, that the wager was never intended to be a basis or reason for faith. The wager is found in an apologetic (his Pensées) aimed at those who didn't consider the question of God worth considering. The wager had the express intention of showing the "happy agnostic" the value and probable necessity of considering the question of God.

bobsyouruncle

neuro-praxis wrote:

elivsvonchiaing: that's originally Aristotle's idea of the Unmoved Mover you're referring to, which Spinoza of course ripped off.

Manchegan said:

If you do your research you will find

1) That Galileo loved the church, was a vocal church advocator and was friendly with a number of popes. His relationship with the Catholic Church broke down during the reformation but he remained loyal to the his catholic faith. That he was at odds with the church at all is a misconception. Read Rebuilding the Matrix by Denis Alexander for more on this.

2) We are not discussing looking to science to prove the existence of God, but to philosophy and logic. To scientifically prove something we must do so through experimentation, which is quite obviously not possible in the realm of ontological, cosmological or epistemological thought.

3) It is perfectly possible for science and religious belief to co-exist. I must ask you why you think they cannot exist together? Science is not the "new religion". SJ Gould, our primary source on the most recent and accurate account evolutionary theory, holds religious belief (well, held. He died not too long ago). What does that say? I fear that you are being sidetracked by an understandable prejudice against fundamentalist 7-day creationist Christians.

Fysh said:

Let's then imagine that we are discussing the Unmoved Mover, which is effectively, the creator God. He/She/It did its work and is now sitting back.

Can we logically prove it exists?

I believe so. This is a (summation of) cosmological proof for the existence of God as proposed by Dr. Thomas AF Kelly.

Things whose existences are not necessary are mortal - that is to say, they come into existence and then they pass away. Contingency and temporailty therefore are two sides of the same coin.

If the expression "God exists" is always a contingent (possibly true, but possibly untrue) statement, what can we say?


I'll preface it with a proof that demonstrates that possibility is insufficient for actuality.

p = actual
not p = possible

[example - if a doctor says; "I am a doctor" they are stating actuality. To say "I could become a pilot/chef/helipcopter" is to state what is possible.]

To say that possibility is sufficient for actuality is to say that p = not p. [example, it is for the doctor to say "I am a pilot".]

To say p = not p is a very clear contraditiction, therefore we know that possibility is not sufficient for actuality.

Since we now know with certainty that possibility is insufficient for actuality, then we know that the possibility of a world is not enough for a world to exist. Possibilities of existence do not alter existence. And each event has a cause. Therefore, as we can see that the world is insufficient for its own existence, then there must be something outside of thw world and not identical to itself that caused its existence.

That which grants existence is unique: to provide that which it is to be. What God turns out to be is that which is identical to what it is to be.

Thus the ongoing existence of the world is dependent on the creator of the world for that very existence.

---

Refute at will!

I agree....

popinfresh

Here's the "LOGIC" I'd use for arguing for a god.

When arguing for the theory of evolution people completely ignore the implications the theory poses and instead focus on "Evolution happened, people who beleive in god say it didn't therefore there's no god".
What are these implications?? Well, the theory of evolution basically states that intelegent life (an arguable term to use, but I shall use it to refer to us) is a hugely elaborate chain reaction that stemmed from simple chemical reactions in some soup like formula a cupla billion years ago. One could say that we are a phenomenon created by the universe. This is where it starts to get interesting. We, as humans, are proof that intelegent beings can come into exisitance. However one must not over-look that inevitably, we are the result of an elaborate chemical reaction that OBEYED THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. I have no problem comprehending that such ultimate supreme being could have been created by similar chemical reactions at the time of the big-bang........


It p1sses me off when "intelectual" people seem so certain that there can't be a god. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, ffs!!!!

SkepticOne

"Here's the "LOGIC" I'd use for arguing for a god. " So, some people arguing against the existence of God use invalid reasoning. Therefore God exists.

Personally, I don't think evolution, if true, tilts things one way or the other. It does undermine some religious beliefs however, e.g. that the god directly designed each species as they exist today in a short space of time.

It is obviously still possible to have a number of conceptions of god, e.g.

1. A god that created matter/energy and the laws of physics.
2. A god that was created in the big bang (as per your post).
3. A god that is identical with the universe.

2 and 3 would probably be rejected by Christians, though.

popinfresh

My favourite is

4:a personification of the laws of physics

Fysh

popinfresh wrote:

My favourite is

4:a personification of the laws of physics

And this personification is evidenced where ? (I honestly can't think of any other answer you're going to give other than "the universe as a whole", at which point I'd say that if the only evidence of God being the personified laws of physics is the laws of physics that we observe, then you're just defining natural phenomena as being God.)

What, exactly, is the point in defining God as the rules of the universe? Why is there any requirement to have some semblance of sentience acribed to a set of rules that describe how the universe works? What evidence do you have to support this definition of God?

popinfresh wrote:

It p1sses me off when "intelectual" people seem so certain that there can't be a god. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, ffs!!!!

I do. Thinking outside the box, however, doesn't give me any convincing proof that there is a God. I can't offer you definitive proof that there isn't a God outside our universe - but I've yet to see any definitive evidence that there is a God. Between that and Occam's Razor, I'll stay where I am, thank you.

popinfresh

And this personification is evidenced where ? (I honestly can't think of any other answer you're going to give other than "the universe as a whole", at which point I'd say that if the only evidence of God being the personified laws of physics is the laws of physics that we observe, then you're just defining natural phenomena as being God.)

I mereley pointed out one of many possible views one could pose. The above being the one I personally found to be the most interesting. The above suggests that maybe god is something else, but we personified that something else as a person. "the laws of physics" is the most intersting "something else" explanation I have seen so far. I CBA trying to argue for the above, because I only view it as being intersting.

I do. Thinking outside the box, however, doesn't give me any convincing proof that there is a God. I can't offer you definitive proof that there isn't a God outside our universe - but I've yet to see any definitive evidence that there is a God. Between that and Occam's Razor, I'll stay where I am, thank you.

My personal opinion is that if you think that you are able to say "Yes there is a god" or "No, there is not a god" you're not thinking outside the box. The fact of the matter is that there is no way of scientifically proving whether or not there is a god (you most likely acknoledge that) But also, I think that there is no reasoning for one to be able to even say "I know there's no proof, but I would be inclined to think....."

If you have made a decision as to whether or not you beleive in god, please tell me the logic behing this decision, to make an example...

BTW, I'm agnostic if that's of any relevence..

Fysh

popinfresh wrote:

My personal opinion is that if you think that you are able to say "Yes there is a god" or "No, there is not a god" you're not thinking outside the box.

The fact of the matter is that there is no way of scientifically proving whether or not there is a god (you most likely acknoledge that) But also, I think that there is no reasoning for one to be able to even say "I know there's no proof, but I would be inclined to think....."

If you have made a decision as to whether or not you beleive in god, please tell me the logic behing this decision, to make an example...

BTW, I'm agnostic if that's of any relevence..

I've already said this, but fine...

My logic? I'm a physicist. I've studied maths and physics in some depth and learned a fair bit about how the universe works. And yes, there is a problem of trying to think about the universe using a scientific method that works by analysing closed systems - in that, if you can't get outside the system, you can't be sure you know everything about it. And yes, as neuro-praxis pointed out, there's the whole "how did it start" question.

My logic is very simple. I've seen no evidence that compels me to reject all other theories (including "we don't know and need to explore more") in favour of believing in some sort of omnipotent or superpotent deity. There are problems that haven't yet been answered by science, I agree. However, using Occam's Razor, I find that the idea of God introduces more questions (such as, how did God start? Is there a super-universe that he exists in? If so, are there others like him? How was the super-universe created? among others) than it answers and therefore I reject it as a possibility.

Not to mention the fact that there's millions of people all over the world wondering if God exists, and none of us have ever been given conclusive reproducible proof. Lack of evidence cannot be used as conclusive proof, but it can be used as an indicator into relative probabilities of ideas.

popinfresh

My logic is very simple. I've seen no evidence that compels me to reject all other theories (including "we don't know and need to explore more") in favour of believing in some sort of omnipotent or superpotent deity.

How does beleiving in a divine being provoke the notion "we don't know and need to explore more"? Or am I misreading that?

Not to mention the fact that there's millions of people all over the world wondering if God exists, and none of us have ever been given conclusive reproducible proof. Lack of evidence cannot be used as conclusive proof, but it can be used as an indicator into relative probabilities of ideas.

That works both ways though doesn't it. One could say "i see no evidence that god doesn't exist, therefore I would be inclined to beleive that god does exist"

The fact is, that science (and philosophy for that matter) can only prove or disprove people's assumptions as to what a "god" would be. That's all it can do. If you prove beyond a doubt that YES, evolution did happen(I beleive in evolution but I'm pointing out that it lacks hard scientific evidence needed so that the theory can be considered fact) All that will happen is that the typical creationist's assumptions will be shattered. Then someone will say "But what if god used evolution to create us."

However, using Occam's Razor, I find that the idea of God introduces more questions (such as, how did God start? Is there a super-universe that he exists in? If so, are there others like him? How was the super-universe created? among others) than it answers and therefore I reject it as a possibility.

Maybe i'm misreading / you didn't get your point across correctly but it seems to me your argument can be simplified to "the idea of a divine being poses annoying questions that science cannot yet comprehend therefore I don't want to beleive in god, therefore i think there is no god".

Fysh

popinfresh wrote:

How does beleiving in a divine being provoke the notion "we don't know and need to explore more"? Or am I misreading that?

Misreading it - I meant the exact opposite, that believing in God generally involves a lessening of that fascination and desire to explore. Because, at the end of the day, whatever the answer is, it boils down to "God".

popinfresh wrote:

That works both ways though doesn't it. One could say "i see no evidence that god doesn't exist, therefore I would be inclined to beleive that god does exist"

You could say that, except I'd throw Occam's Razor right back at you, and say that given the notion of a deity outside our normal realm of perception and a situation where we have no evidence either for or against its existence, the simpler answer (until further evidence becomes available) is to assume its inexistence. You're welcome to disagree with that, although you'll have to find a convincing argument against Occam's Razor as a tool of reasoning in order to convince me.

popinfresh wrote:

The fact is, that science (and philosophy for that matter) can only prove or disprove people's assumptions as to what a "god" would be. That's all it can do. If you prove beyond a doubt that YES, evolution did happen(I beleive in evolution but I'm pointing out that it lacks hard scientific evidence needed so that the theory can be considered fact) All that will happen is that the typical creationist's assumptions will be shattered. Then someone will say "But what if god used evolution to create us."

Yeah, and what if god put the dinosaurs there just to test our faith? And what if he made the universe just look really old to try and trick us? And what if all that stuff with the fruit fly experiments were just a secret gay liberal conspiracy to make us all communists?

Come on. We both know that there are fundamentalists who will never let go of their religion, no matter what evidence is offered. It's not like there isn't already scientific evidence at odds with the Bible.

The point is that there aren't any objectively and reliably documented cases of miracles or any other evidence of God's existence. And, when you consider how many of those there were in Jesus' time, you have to start thinking that this is a bit strange. It's just science - surely God can manipulate it easily, being omnipotent and all? And yet, the days and weeks and months and years tick by, with no proof offered. It doesn't prove God's inexistence conclusively, but it can be used to refine the probability of God existing. And, as you say, it should also affect how we think of what God is. 2 World Wars and the unleashing of the atom bomb, and yet no intervention from God. Is he bored of us? Has he stopped caring? Or is he just not there, regardless of whether he ever was?

popinfresh wrote:

Maybe i'm misreading / you didn't get your point across correctly but it seems to me your argument can be simplified to "the idea of a divine being poses annoying questions that science cannot yet comprehend therefore I don't want to beleive in god, therefore i think there is no god".

No, you're completely misreading it. What I'm saying is that, using God to answer certain scientific questions poses more questions without offering any viable way of explaining them (outside of falling back on the omnipotence of God, which is just stating that God does it somehow rather than identifying a specific mechanism by which he does it). And this seems to me to be an extremely poor way of answering questions, since I generally use Occam's Razor as a guiding principle. (Although I should note that physicists have accepted daft ideas and lack of experimental evidence as proof of a theory, when they accepted the current model for chromodynamics).

SkepticOne

popinfresh wrote:

My favourite is

4:a personification of the laws of physics

Are you not simply attaching the name 'God' to the laws of physics and imagining this as a person? Why not just stick with 'the laws of physics' and leave it at that? Would this not make more sense?

popinfresh

Are you not simply attaching the name 'God' to the laws of physics and imagining this as a person? Why not just stick with 'the laws of physics' and leave it at that? Would this not make more sense?

"God is a personification of the laws of physics". Implys that people observe the laws of physics and personify it as a person. Ie, they imagine the laws of physics to be a person. Again, I just thought was an interesting idea. I'm not going to argue for or against it.

Misreading it - I meant the exact opposite, that believing in God generally involves a lessening of that fascination and desire to explore. Because, at the end of the day, whatever the answer is, it boils down to "God".

That doesn't really address the subject of whether or not there is a god. Also, what you said is arguable.

You could say that, except I'd throw Occam's Razor right back at you, and say that given the notion of a deity outside our normal realm of perception and a situation where we have no evidence either for or against its existence, the simpler answer (until further evidence becomes available) is to assume its inexistence. You're welcome to disagree with that, although you'll have to find a convincing argument against Occam's Razor as a tool of reasoning in order to convince me.

The thing is, I don't think Occam's Razor can be used in this argument (whether or not there is a god).
On the other hand, if somebody said that evolution didn't happen and god actually made man by waving a magic wand over a load of dust, well then occum's razor would apply. Why? Because despite the fact that there is no hard solid evidence of evolution, there is credible reasoning to beleive that evolution did occur. Wheras there is not a hint of evidence/logic to suggest that god made man with a magic wand. Therefore, using occam's razer, we can conclude that the magic wand theory is a load of cack..
What's my point? Occam's razor only applies when you are faced with a yes/no question. If "yes" lacks evidence and "no" aslo lacks evidence, you decide by reasoning.
However, there are situations where occam's razor does not apply. For example lets say you are driving in your car somewhere in the countryside. And you come to a fork in the road. You do not know which road is the road you are suppose to take, they both look identicle and there's no sign-posts to tell you which way to go. You cannot say "There's no evidence that road A is the correct road, therefore I'm going to go down B" simply because you could also say "There's no evidence that road B is the correct road, therefore I'm going to go down A"
In other words, Occam's razor does not apply to a situation where there is no evidece or reasoning to suggest either theory A or theory B. Occam's Razor only applies if there's no solid evidence that theory A or theory B are correct, but reasoning would lead you to conclude that theory A (or is the correct one.
At this point, I should point out that your use of occam's razor is effectively a triple negative. Whereby your reason to suggest that god does not exist is based on the occam's razor theory that there is no evidence that god does exist. However occam's theory also needs a credible reason or "reasoning" to suggest the theory that god does not exist. In short, what you are effectively saying is "My reason to not beleive in god is that there is reason to not beleive in god"

[God that last paragraph makes me wanna buy a pack or riesens ]

Yeah, and what if god put the dinosaurs there just to test our faith? And what if he made the universe just look really old to try and trick us? And what if all that stuff with the fruit fly experiments were just a secret gay liberal conspiracy to make us all communists?

TBH, going back to the idea of people's perceptions. Your perception of god (or what god would be) is a perception that portrays the god to be cack. i.e. you think the theory of god is a load of cack. For me though, the question of whether or not the is a god is as follows.
Does there exist, in our universe or beyond, an accumulation of matter and or energy that is organised in such a way that it could be considered a consciece mind. (Remember the fact that our brain is an accumulation of matter/energy organised in a way that it is a conscious mind). And ultimetely did the forementioned system of matter/energy act in such a way (to be understood as conscious decision) so as to in some-way intervene in what we know as being the universe such that we are sitting here today, as oppsed to us not sitting here today.

That is the question at hand as I see it.

Fysh

popinfresh wrote:

That doesn't really address the subject of whether or not there is a god. Also, what you said is arguable.

I don't think it is. When your answer to a given scientific question fundamentally boils down to "an omnipotent being about whom we have extremely limited knowledge caused this to happen", what point is there in investigating the mechanics of the phenomenon to any great degree? If you accept that God is the cause, and you also accept that we cannot know much (if anything) about God, then what's the point in trying to know about what you accept to be possibly unknowable?

popinfresh wrote:

The thing is, I don't think Occam's Razor can be used in this argument (whether or not there is a god).
On the other hand, if somebody said that evolution didn't happen and god actually made man by waving a magic wand over a load of dust, well then occum's razor would apply. Why? Because despite the fact that there is no hard solid evidence of evolution, there is credible reasoning to beleive that evolution did occur.

There's been quite a few experiments involving fruit flies where the emergence and changing dominance of certain genetical attributes have been observed. Which demonstrates the process. But since it's not the same as replicating the process of an ape-like being evolving into a human, that's not evidence. There's also the case of the speckled moths in the UK during the industrial revolution (as far as I recall, the case was there were two types of moths, white and black, and the white one was dominant. Come the industrial revolution and pollution, conditions favoured the black moth which increased in numbers as it had more natural camouflage) - again, it demonstrates the process of natural selection quite aptly. But since it doesn't correlate *exactly* to the theory of man's development, it's generally conveniently ignored by the creationists.

popinfresh wrote:

What's my point? Occam's razor only applies when you are faced with a yes/no question. If "yes" lacks evidence and "no" aslo lacks evidence, you decide by reasoning.

Testicles, to put it politely. Occam's Razor is a tool for deciding which of two proposed explanations are more likely, by stating that you should evaluate the relative probability of the requirements of each explanation in light of existing evidence, and choose that which requires fewest unsupported assumptions.

popinfresh wrote:

However, there are situations where occam's razor does not apply. For example lets say you are driving in your car somewhere in the countryside. And you come to a fork in the road. You do not know which road is the road you are suppose to take, they both look identicle and there's no sign-posts to tell you which way to go. You cannot say "There's no evidence that road A is the correct road, therefore I'm going to go down B" simply because you could also say "There's no evidence that road B is the correct road, therefore I'm going to go down A"
In other words, Occam's razor does not apply to a situation where there is no evidece or reasoning to suggest either theory A or theory B. Occam's Razor only applies if there's no solid evidence that theory A or theory B are correct, but reasoning would lead you to conclude that theory A (or is the correct one.

Your example doesn't apply, because :

a)you may know whereabouts the town you need to go is, and therefore hazard a guess based on the relative directions of the two roads (yes, pedantic, I know. But many an argument fell apart by trying to be too generic)
b)you cannot state that there is an equal lack of evidence for God existing or not existing. If you believe that God exists, then you believe that he made us in some way, refuses outright to show any evidence of himself (including any explanation of his mechanisms for creating us and the universe), and that the evidence uncovered by scientists is a test by this God. Who has never shown himself. Whereas if you don't believe there's a God, you're assuming that the lack of conclusive proof in favour of God's existence is due to the lack of God's existence. From a scientific perspective, Occam holds that believing in God is the less rational of the two choices.

Now, if you had some sort of reproducible phenomena (eg someone able to cause miracles at will) that could not be explained by any known scientific theory...then you could start equating the two, because both would have a gaping hole and there's no real reason to prefer one option or the other since either would be incomplete.

popinfresh wrote:

At this point, I should point out that your use of occam's razor is effectively a triple negative. Whereby your reason to suggest that god does not exist is based on the occam's razor theory that there is no evidence that god does exist. However occam's theory also needs a credible reason or "reasoning" to suggest the theory that god does not exist. In short, what you are effectively saying is "My reason to not beleive in god is that there is reason to not beleive in god"

[God that last paragraph makes me wanna buy a pack or riesens ]

I have no idea how on Earth you concluded that this is my reason for not believing in God. My reason for not believing in God is quite simple - there's no evidence to suggest that God exists. A single negative. It's not that there is reason to not believe in God (what conceivable benefit does not believing in God give me?), it's that there is no reason to believe in the first place. Example : If i say to you that the universe is filled with invisible pink unicorns, but you can't ever touch them because they move in such a way as to always be behind you and are impervious to scientific detection or analysis. Occam's razor would suggest I'm talking out of my anal passage. Your arguments, however, suggest that the statement for the existence of invisible pink unicorns could be argued to hold equal weight to the statement for the inexistence of invisible pink unicorns.

To be perfectly honest, it sounds like you're either deliberately or inadvertently misinterpreting Occam's Razor - especially since I've never heard anyone else try to use it in the way you have.

popinfresh wrote:

Does there exist, in our universe or beyond, an accumulation of matter and or energy that is organised in such a way that it could be considered a consciece mind. (Remember the fact that our brain is an accumulation of matter/energy organised in a way that it is a conscious mind). And ultimetely did the forementioned system of matter/energy act in such a way (to be understood as conscious decision) so as to in some-way intervene in what we know as being the universe such that we are sitting here today, as oppsed to us not sitting here today.

That is the question at hand as I see it.

Ok, fine, phrase the question in a more scientific way. You've still got no actual proof for any kind of God existing. And I'm disappointed to have to point out that your use of our existence as proof of God is anthropic reasoning, and therefore invalid in the context you're trying to use it. Just because we exist doesn't mean there's a design behind us existing.

omnicorp

but there's no proof that God doesn't exist.
And, contrary to popular belief, we know very little about the world behind us.
We don't even know what's in most of the seas.