Proof of God

[c0de]

Recently, I discovered some proof, that, as far as I understand it, is irrefutable mathematical and scientific proof that God exists. I would like to post it here for critical analysis. Please feel free to tear it apart if you spot any weaknesses in the argument, as it will be used in some very unforgiving environments. Harsh judgment will be greatly appreciated.

The argument involves philosophy, science and mathematics. But don't be intimidated, its very simple and if I can get it, anyone can. The Issues that will be examined:

1. Einstein's Theory of Relativity vs. Quantum Mechanics
2. Mathematics vs David Hume's supposed debunking of Causality

Ok... I will try to keep as focused as I can.



# 1: Refutation of Materialism

This first part of the argument attempts to argue that the discrepancy between the findings of Einstein's theory of Relativity, and modern Quantum Mechanics can be reconsiled only if we drop this narrow minded classification for the word "scientific" and/or "reality". According to the scientific method, only that which is falsifiable is scientific. More simply, only that which can be measured, can be considered "real". This is the basis for all materialistic ways of thinking. However, there is now proof, that there is more to this universe, than meets the eye... so to speak.

Now by the word "matter", is meant anything which has mass. Also, according to most scientists, only things which have mass, are real. Anything which doesn't fit into this mass/energy model is effectively, non-existent according to contemporary science.

So first up, Einstein's theory of relativity. One of the main implications of Relativity is its prediction that no matter can travel at, or faster then the speed of light. The closer it gets to the speed of light, the greater its mass will become, and therefore the greater the energy needed to keep accelerating it, until its mass reaches infinity.

Everything was fine, (for a very short while), until Quantum Mechanics came along and rained on Einstein's parade. Today, there are a stream of experiments which have opened up a bizarre subatomic world in which nothing seems to make sense. One of the discoveries came with the double slit experiments. I wont bore you with the details (even though they are not boring and you really should read up on this), but one of the discoveries they found is that there is indeed something faster then light. They found that somehow, information was being shared between electrons at instantaneous speeds. Speeds faster then the speed of light.

But we already "know" that nothing can go faster then the speed of light. Or more specifically, nothing which has mass, can go faster. In other words, everything which is falsifiable, and can be observed/measured, can not travel faster then light. So what does this mean?

We know that:

A) Matter can not travel faster or at the speed of light
B) Something in this universe is travelling at infinite speed (faster then light)

Therefore: There is something in this universe which is beyond matter. So no longer can the scientific method be used to rule that the supernatural (something that can not be measured, or directly observed) is not real and doesnt exist.




#2 - The Resurgence of Causality


Causality is not well liked by philosophers. It is considered to have been effectively debunked by David Hume, its coffin sealed and buried in the 18th century. But in my opinion, philosophers should never be taken too seriously. Mathematics, on the other hand, should.

Some of you might have already figured out where I am going with this. This is the age old debate between hardcore athiests and thiests. This debate goes well beyond the likes of Richard Dawkins and evolutionary biology. According to those like Dawkins, all the order in the universe came about by itself, because they believe that no creative force is neccessary for order to come about.

But the problem with this argument is that this is simply not true, mathematically. This is basically a question of probabilities. What are the odds that this level of evolutionary order came about by itself? Well, according to my research (and if anyone can find counter proof to this please post it here) there is only one way that this level of order could have arisen by itself: If the universe was infinite.

What this means is, if there was infinite time, and infinite space, then a thousand monkeys typing on typewriters will eventually "randomly" produce Shakespeare's Hamlet. This is the oft cited Infinite Monkey Theorem. Now this is not operationally possible of course, but the theory is somewhat valid. However, as we will come to find out, this is proof against the atheist, not in support of him.

The point is that this level of order, could only come about randomly, if there was infinite time and space. If the universe was infinitely big. And we know that this is not the case. If you think about it for a second, in a land without time, anything really can happen by itself. Because all the possibilities are valid, there is just so much time, that everything will end up happening by itself, sooner or later. All the combinations of all the possibilities will work themselves out. But this is only possible in a land without time.

Basically, what this means is that even though its been billions of years since the Big Bang and the universe is so vast... the odds of this level of life evolving on this planet of ours, are still so small, so infinitely minuscule, that it really requires a big leap of faith, to say that this all happened randomly, by chance, and without any creative authority. Think about it, the odds of a single cell ameoba evolving on this planet are themselves incredibly insignificant. But what are the odds that this mutation will then further mutate into something else. And every further mutation requires the odds to be stretched, and stretched until you understand the meaning of the word "impossible".

So mathematics, proves that you need a Prime Cause, an Intelligent Deity to set the ball rolling (at least). For anyone to argue that all of this, happened by itself, ironically, requires a whole lot of faith.

But were not done yet. The philosophical atheist has always had a trump card in his arsenal against causality... or so I thought. At this point he will no doubt end up saying "Well, if causality is real then why don't we apply it to God? If everything needs a cause... and then what was the cause for God?" I always thought that this question was the reason why all believers, ultimately had to fall back on faith and the atheist could always claim victory. However, as it turns out, this point is completely nullified by a simple mathematical fact, i.e. causality only applies to finite things.


You see, in infinite time, anything could happen. Anything could arise by itself. Ramsey Theory, for example provides us proof that highly organized sub systems always arise by themselves in the most random of systems, by themselves, eventually. So technically, what this means is that in infinite time, even a God, could arise by Himself. Without any one creating Him.

This is what God means when He says in the Bible "I am the Alpha and the Omega". In the Quran, God says that He "begets not, nor is He begotten." We can finally understand this statement in terms of mathematics.

So to recap, this is what this argument proposes:

A) That Causality is valid because of mathematical probabilities. This level of evolutionary order in this finite universe could not have come about by itself without an Author. A prime Cause.

B) That causality does not apply to God, because He is Infinite, and anything can come about in an infinite amount of time, even a God.

In addition, we know that there is something out there which is beyond matter. Some form of information exchange through some agency which is unmeasurable. Which should force a redefinition of the "Scientific Method" and what is considered "real."

 

[Dream]

Tearing people's theories apart isn't what people do here, but I read yours. By quantum rules that means it has to change, since it has been observed. You've jumped ahead of known Science with some things you've said, but it is a good paper.

I was reading some of The Selfish Gene a couple of weeks ago, in the part about replicators and I thought it made a good argument for a shorter evolutionary timescale. I haven't read the whole book, but who ever does? You mentioned that strange things happen on the quantum size scale, which is true. What about the large (but not infinite) scale? Let us consider the earth's surface and its journey through time as holding a large-scale if not infinite set of molecular collisions, some of which tend towards stable formations such as crystals. Just as axioms are difficult to define at the quantum level, they are also difficult to surmise at the macro level. Point being how can you, oh human, know for certain how things really work on the grand scale if you cannot trace how they work on the quantum scale?

I think you make a logical assumption when you claim 'something' is moving at infinite speed in quantum entanglement experiments. The entire problem is that nothing has been observed moving at all, since quantum size particles (such as electrons) can seem to be in two places at the same time, and can appear as if entangled at distances! Perhaps instead of moving at infinite speed they could be moving at a timescale 90 degrees from ours, a vantage from which we would probably appear just as fragmented. In that timescale our electron diffraction grating results would appear even weirder than the quantum diffraction experiments appear to us in our timescale -- broken and unpredictable, moving instantaneously. It is similar to mathematical projections of 4-space onto 3-space or 3space onto 2 dimensional space. To the lower dimension, a higher one seems erratic and hard to discern. Our brains manage to put 2d eyesight into a 3d conception, but that is close to the limit of our comprehension. Same thing with a 90 degree time scale. (which I am imagining by-the-way since I've never heard of one)

 

[c0de]

I think you make a logical assumption when you claim 'something' is moving at infinite speed in quantum entanglement experiments. The entire problem is that nothing has been observed moving at all, since quantum size particles (such as electrons) can seem to be in two places at the same time, and can appear as if entangled at distances! Perhaps instead of moving at infinite speed they could be moving at a timescale 90 degrees from ours, a vantage from which we would probably appear just as fragmented.

Very true. There was always more then one explanation to explain this observation. For example, one explanation is that every electron, is simultaneously connected with every other electron, in the entire universe.

The main point of this however was just to make the argument that we need not only take that which we can measure, as being real. This part of the argument was always more of a bonus, not its core. Basically, its only function was to rebut the "scientific method". Which, as you probably already know, isn't even applied in the real world.

Scientists, don't usually go around formulating theories around collected evidence. The process is usually the other way around. It is mostly based on personal convictions. All the "geniuses" first had a conviction about how they thought the world ought to work. Then then went about proving it by molding and shaping the evidence they could find around their conviction. I am exaggerating of course, but as I have learned, this is true for the most part.

I was reading some of The Selfish Gene a couple of weeks ago, in the part about replicators and I thought it made a good argument for a shorter evolutionary timescale.

I am sure the argument boils down to this: Evolution can happen quicker then we previously thought it could. But the question is still one of probabilities. What are the odds that it happened the way it did? Just thinking about that number, boggles the mind.

You've jumped ahead of known Science with some things you've said, but it is a good paper.

Thank you for your very valuable contribution Dream. I will be sure to add the multiple implications of the quantum experiments from now on just so that I don't give the impression that I am leaving something out.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi c0de and welcome,

Nice first post, right up my street so to speak.

I have issue with several points, or leaps of faith, that you make in your post.

First you divide atomic and quantum scale physics and say that the scientific community has different rules for each. Not true. Science recognises that we do not have the full picture yet, the Grand Unified Theory of lore and legend, and may I be so bold to suggest that we have not even scratched the surface of super-reality?

But back to what you say, "More simply, only that which can be measured, can be considered "real". ". Quantum phenomena can be and are measured with great accuracy today. Not only measured but utilised too. Only last week in Vienna Europe's first quantum encrypted communications network went online. That both the atomic scale and the quantum scale physics seem strange to each other is obviously a limitation of our understanding and not any handicap to the coexistence of both states. My feeling here is you give science as a whole a bum deal and focus in on the arguments of a few and so misrepresent the scientific method as a whole.

My second point of issue is with the finite/infinite question. You state it as scientific certainty that the universe is finite. But there is no such certainty. It is only the most popular theory that it all started 13.8 billion years ago with a Big Bang. But there are many, myself amongst them, that see many holes in this narrow inflationary theory. Again only last week the discovery of "rivers" of space time do exist within the visible universe that simply could not exist according to currently inflationary models. I do not believe in a finite reality. I do not believe in Big bang theory nor in the existence/invocation of dark matter / energy to give it any possibility of being true. I believe in an infinite universe in which our visible universe is tied to certain limitations of physics, most of which we have not even discovered yet. While it is true that in an infinite universe god has every potential to self create it is also true in an infinite universe that it would be a local event and thus not really god but a local deity. Why? Because infinity itself is the only infinite. Everything else is localised within it.

That aside the very concept of god is so "in mans image" as to be no more credible than Santa Claus. The concept is saturated with human psychological constructs to the degree it must be immediately dismissed unless there is clear and unambiguous evidence to give it credence. Evidence that after millenia of theoogical searching has yet to produce a single verifiable proof.

In your refutation of materialism I think you begin to get to where I am at. Except you fall into the "I need a daddy psychology" of invoking a creator. The physics we use to describe and explain our local reality are to my mind only a partial glimpse of super-reality. The reality of infinity is by definition infinite. We, as a species, will never know it in its entirety as infinity is unknowable. In the abscence of a demonstrable nano-speck of evidence for deity have a working influence on our local reality my argument is that it is safest and most productive to conclude that there is none.

You mentioned Ramsey theory but instead of seeing it as a naturally occuring mechanism in the evolution of systems within the physical boundaries of our local reality you invoke some designer. Ramsey theory, like Chaos theory, need be nothing more than the local expression of order within the boundaries of the pertinent local conditions. We cannot even begin to guess what lays just beyond our ability to observe nor how such things might play some role in defining the possible within the systems we can observe.

We are and will continue to be hamstrung by the limitations imposed on us by us being fixed in our local reality. If our species survives a billion years we will still not have all the answers, because infinity is always beyond us. But to try an use what we do know to invoke a god is grasping at straws and is much more of a psychological than a physical search for the true nature of super-reality.

tao

 

[c0de]

Hello Tao & thank you for your interest

Hi c0de and welcome,

But back to what you say, "More simply, only that which can be measured, can be considered "real". ". Quantum phenomena can be and are measured with great accuracy today. Not only measured but utilised too. Only last week in Vienna Europe's first quantum encrypted communications network went online.

I am afraid that you are confusing the word "measure" with the word "predict". My physics professor doesn't even like to use the word "predict" when talking about the Quantum World. For example, you cited new developments in communication (Quantum encryption) as evidence that we can measure quantum phenomenon. If you examine this technology, you will realize that it relies on the predictability of the observer phenomenon. But if you ask those same technicians how the observer phenomenon works, they will have no answer. That's the point. To measure something would mean to understand how it is happening.

First you divide atomic and quantum scale physics and say that the scientific community has different rules for each. Not true.

Well... actually it is true. The world of Relativity operates on very different rules then the world of Quantum Mechanics.

My second point of issue is with the finite/infinite question. You state it as scientific certainty that the universe is finite. But there is no such certainty. It is only the most popular theory that it all started 13.8 billion years ago with a Big Bang. But there are many, myself amongst them, that see many holes in this narrow inflationary theory. Again only last week the discovery of "rivers" of space time do exist within the visible universe that simply could not exist according to currently inflationary models. I do not believe in a finite reality. I do not believe in Big bang theory nor in the existence/invocation of dark matter / energy to give it any possibility of being true. I believe in an infinite universe in which our visible universe is tied to certain limitations of physics, most of which we have not even discovered yet. While it is true that in an infinite universe god has every potential to self create it is also true in an infinite universe that it would be a local event and thus not really god but a local deity. Why? Because infinity itself is the only infinite. Everything else is localised within it.

The main alternative to the Big Bang theory really does not affect the Argument from Mathematical Probabilities. The repeating Cyclical theory of Steinhardt and Turok (which is the main contender against the Big Bang theory) states that the cycle of the universe starts and ends, and begins over and over again, meaning that the universe expands and collapses every few trillion years or so.

The reason why this does not affect the argument is because the probabilities will have to reset with each closing up of the universe. Because there is only a limited time for evolution to take place within each cycle.


I will be glad to look at other alternatives but you will have to give me a specific model and theory to analyze.

You mentioned Ramsey theory but instead of seeing it as a naturally occuring mechanism in the evolution of systems within the physical boundaries of our local reality you invoke some designer.

A "naturally occurring mechanism"... sure. But what are the odds that this mechanism occurred the way it did? Can these odds be sustained in a finite system? No they can not. This is why a Designer becomes necessary, and thats the whole point of the argument.

You say that there is no consensus on the issue of the finite universe, but it is the generally accepted model of the universe. Even the main alternative does not posit an infinite universe. If you prefer an alternative which does hypothesis an infinite universe, please be specific so I could analyze it further and examine its details. That would help me modify the theory accordingly.

That aside the very concept of god is so "in mans image" as to be no more credible than Santa Claus. The concept is saturated with human psychological constructs to the degree it must be immediately dismissed unless there is clear and unambiguous evidence to give it credence. Evidence that after millenia of theoogical searching has yet to produce a single verifiable proof.

I think this is an unfair statement. Also, it is very problematic. This late 19th century idea that man creates god in his image came from Feurebach, but his theory was very incomplete and criticized because of it. Other more well known minds came along after it to try and fill the holes, but the main issue with it will always remain unresolved. The idea that there is no god and man can only learn the facts of life if he matures away from the concept of god, assumes (and very wrongly in fact) that taking God out of the picture makes man's journey on to the path of knowledge easier. And this is an unqualified assumption. If anything, it raises more problems then it solves. Moreover, it doesnt provide any solution or new gateway to knowledge to begin with because we can never really "know" anything, as the empiricists like Hume and Kant would willingly admit.

But that is a separate issue which requires a separate thread. However, if you create that thread, I will be glad to take up this issue again.

 

[Mirko]

much of this proof sounds like another variation of the fine tuning argument

now i have newer been good at mathematics, and what little information i have learned about quantum physics mostly comes from those annoying new online computer generated quasi-documentaries that make me want to punch the people that made it, for some reason, so admittedly much of this goes over my head

still this much i see as irrefutable and self evident;

the totality of reality cannot be reduced to a god

it simply wont work

and besides, this "proof" from which you extrapolate god could well be interpreted in god knows how many ways
in a hypothetical infinite time and/or space there could hypothetically be room for infinite numbers of god-like entities trillions of hypothetical divinities, billions of hypothetical creators, all of which would still be sub-systems within sub-systems within sub-systems etc...

i mean look at us, we manufacture and fabricate our own creations
are we gods?

 

[Dream]

Anyway, the probabilities of evolution are still way beyond our means of computation. We just won't know the probabilities without first accumulating huge amounts of date and computational abilities. We'd probably need longer lifespans as well.

By the way, take a look at the thread on "Multiple Universes or God?"
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/multiverse-or-g-d-9737.html

 

[c0de]

The only point of this argument was only to show that the claim of those who ridicule those who believe in God by saying their belief is irrational and not based in any measure of provable phenomenon... is wrong and unfair. If only that which was measurable was considered real then much of what is considered scientific should fail the test as well. Also, one can use mathematical tools and apply them to the proof for God as well, so it is not irrational to believe in God either. In the end of the day, whatever system of symbols you choose to accept, you will always have to employ a certain measure of faith to keep believing in it, even if your an atheist.

Btw, Dream I checked out the thread you referred to. I especially enjoyed this line of yours: "Some things are more infinite than others"

p.s. Thanks guys for contributing.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi c0de, thank you for your reply,

I am afraid that you are confusing the word "measure" with the word "predict". My physics professor doesn't even like to use the word "predict" when talking about the Quantum World. For example, you cited new developments in communication (Quantum encryption) as evidence that we can measure quantum phenomenon. If you examine this technology, you will realize that it relies on the predictability of the observer phenomenon. But if you ask those same technicians how the observer phenomenon works, they will have no answer. That's the point. To measure something would mean to understand how it is happening.

lol, irrelevancies and misleading thinking. What is Gravity? A quantum physicist predicted anyons as part of a thought experiment and now microsoft is using them to build a quantum computer. Predictions are not direct measurements perhaps, but they are based on measurements and you split hairs and mislead, yourself, in your desperation to prove not by presenting evidence but by clouding the remit of science.

Well... actually it is true. The world of Relativity operates on very different rules then the world of Quantum Mechanics.

Thats not what I was saying. What I was saying is that science treats them both the same in regard to peer review, repeatability etc.

The main alternative to the Big Bang theory really does not affect the Argument from Mathematical Probabilities. The repeating Cyclical theory of Steinhardt and Turok (which is the main contender against the Big Bang theory) states that the cycle of the universe starts and ends, and begins over and over again, meaning that the universe expands and collapses every few trillion years or so.

I follow no particular theory. My overview is based on non partisan evaluations of all the data I have so far read.

I will be glad to look at other alternatives but you will have to give me a specific model and theory to analyze.

Simple, the universe is infinite and operates on many more dimensions than we have the tools or capacity to comprehend. We cannot know that which we cannot see or measure.

A "naturally occurring mechanism"... sure. But what are the odds that this mechanism occurred the way it did? Can these odds be sustained in a finite system? No they can not. This is why a Designer becomes necessary, and thats the whole point of the argument.

Invoking a designer by being unable to explain the unexplainable or the as yet unexplained is a much much weaker argument than mine. Mine is that there is absolutely no evidence of a creator. Show me some and I may change my mind.

You say that there is no consensus on the issue of the finite universe, but it is the generally accepted model of the universe. Even the main alternative does not posit an infinite universe. If you prefer an alternative which does hypothesis an infinite universe, please be specific so I could analyze it further and examine its details. That would help me modify the theory accordingly.

You say there is no consensus. That works for me. There can be no consensus. But if there was a god or a creator the 'design' would be patently obvious by now. But there is nothing but nothing, not one iota of proof for a creator. Trying to paint science as flawed and citing that as proof is about as weak an hypothesis as ever I heard. And far from an original one.

I think this is an unfair statement. Also, it is very problematic. This late 19th century idea that man creates god in his image came from Feurebach, but his theory was very incomplete and criticized because of it. Other more well known minds came along after it to try and fill the holes, but the main issue with it will always remain unresolved. The idea that there is no god and man can only learn the facts of life if he matures away from the concept of god, assumes (and very wrongly in fact) that taking God out of the picture makes man's journey on to the path of knowledge easier. And this is an unqualified assumption. If anything, it raises more problems then it solves. Moreover, it doesnt provide any solution or new gateway to knowledge to begin with because we can never really "know" anything, as the empiricists like Hume and Kant would willingly admit.

And I am with Hume and Kant though I arrived there quite independently. Kant's "What is enlightenment" was not setting out, as he clearly states, to prove anything but to encourage a non biased evaluation of reality as observed, as you state. So why then try to 'manufacture' dissonance in science as your only evidence for a creator? Your bias is written large in every word.

The only point of this argument was only to show that the claim of those who ridicule those who believe in God by saying their belief is irrational and not based in any measure of provable phenomenon... is wrong and unfair. If only that which was measurable was considered real then much of what is considered scientific should fail the test as well.

Again here you repeat a misleading assumption. Science is not setting out to prove an archaic notion of a creator, thats the task of the theologian. And they have all failed miserably.

Also, one can use mathematical tools and apply them to the proof for God as well, so it is not irrational to believe in God either. .

Provide the mathematics that prove god!!

tao

 

[c0de]

@ Tao

lol, irrelevancies and misleading thinking. What is Gravity? A quantum physicist predicted anyons as part of a thought experiment and now microsoft is using them to build a quantum computer. Predictions are not direct measurements perhaps, but they are based on measurements and you split hairs and mislead, yourself, in your desperation to prove not by presenting evidence but by clouding the remit of science.

This is the contact information for my prof.
Ask him if we can "measure" quantum phenomenon or not.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] david.harrison@utoronto.ca[/FONT]
His website: Faculty: David M. Harrison

So why then try to 'manufacture' dissonance in science as your only evidence for a creator? Your bias is written large in every word.

The world of relativity completely contradicts the world of Quantum Mechanics. That is a pretty big rift wouldn't you say? I know Einstein thought so.

Invoking a designer by being unable to explain the unexplainable or the as yet unexplained is a much much weaker argument than mine. Mine is that there is absolutely no evidence of a creator. Show me some and I may change my mind.

I thought I already did. (The Argument from Probabilities).

 

[Tao_Equus]

The world of relativity completely contradicts the world of Quantum Mechanics. That is a pretty big rift wouldn't you say? I know Einstein thought so.

Absolutely not! That they both exist is testament to there being no contradiction at all. The only issue is our understanding of them. Yes Einstein did have great difficulty, but equally he had difficulty and posited, retracted and re-posited special relativity. Einstein had many unresolved 'problems' when he died. Of course.

I thought I already did. (The Argument from Probabilities).

That is no way shape or form any evidence at all.

tao

 

[Dream]

There can be no consensus. But if there was a god or a creator the 'design' would be patently obvious by now. But there is nothing but nothing, not one iota of proof for a creator.

That assumes we are owed an explanation of things, but that is clearly not the case -- god or no god. The reason lots of people think there is one god is they feel its impossible for there to be multiple gods, which is a mathematical argument. I think Socrates is one of those famous ancient people who came to the mathematical conclusion that there can only be one God. God, or no god: there can only be one. We have more proof of that now than ever before.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Code,

thank you for the post and welcome to the forum.

by and large i agree with Tao's postings thus far on this thread.

my own paradigm for the universe is predicated upon my religious view, within the remit of modern cosmology i would generally adhere to the No Boundary Proposal as articulated by Drs. Turok and Hawking. whilst it is correct that this proposal is unmeasurable as it is the inclusion of Basian statistics allows measurements to take place.

alternately i've been very intrigued by the innovations in GUT as proposed by Dr. Green amongst others. they make a very compelling case for 10D Super String.

all of that said i really disagree with a certain assumption that is made in discussion with those that disbelieve in deities, namely that we want proof. nearly every atheist that i've spoken to on this particular matter does not want proof, they want evidence.

not just any sort of evidence, mind you, but intersubjective evidence for the claims being made. the lack of intersubjective evidence for the existence of deities, deity or God compels the rational being to withold belief until such time that intersubjective evidence is presented.

proofs are properties of formal systems, like logic and maths, and their outcomes are predicated on their axioms and thus something can be a logical proof yet be untrue.

all of that said if you've got some intersubjective evidence of the deity you are proposing i'd be keen to examine it. as this is your thread on proof we could start a new thread on intersubjective evidence if you'd like.

metta,

~v

 

[c0de]

@ Tao + Vajradhara




Tao

Absolutely not! That they both exist is testament to there being no contradiction at all. The only issue is our understanding of them.

Not really Tao. You see they both do not, and can not exist simultaneously because they are mutually exclusive. Or more correctly, the universe that they both posit can not exist simultaneously.

That is no way shape or form any evidence at all.

Of course it is. This can be proven by your own words. In your first response to the argument, the only objection you raised to the Argument from Probabilities was the following: "You state it as scientific certainty that the universe is finite. But there is no such certainty."

I already stated that both the Big Bang, and its main alternative work on the basis of a finite model. Your main objection has been answered.








Vajradhara


Hello, and welcome to the discussion.

by and large i agree with Tao's postings thus far on this thread.

The only reason I started this thread is to gather valuable objections to it. I myself actually see Mirko and Dream's objections more useful for this purpose.

i would generally adhere to the No Boundary Proposal as articulated by Drs. Turok and Hawking

Yes, I do believe that their version has great weight to it. However, I do not think that it solves all the problems associated with the Big Bang. But that is another discussion.

all of that said i really disagree with a certain assumption that is made in discussion with those that disbelieve in deities, namely that we want proof. nearly every atheist that i've spoken to on this particular matter does not want proof, they want evidence.

not just any sort of evidence, mind you, but intersubjective evidence for the claims being made. the lack of intersubjective evidence for the existence of deities, deity or God compels the rational being to withold belief until such time that intersubjective evidence is presented.

proofs are properties of formal systems, like logic and maths, and their outcomes are predicated on their axioms and thus something can be a logical proof yet be untrue.

all of that said if you've got some intersubjective evidence of the deity you are proposing i'd be keen to examine it. as this is your thread on proof we could start a new thread on intersubjective evidence if you'd like.

I agree. Proof is dependent on the paradigm and can be generated for everything. As for intersubjective evidence, I think that debate would also end up dissolving into basic questions of epistemology wouldnt it? I do not think that this sort of debate will get much further as both sides can still go on the offensive. Either way, it would be a very interesting discussion

 

[Dream]

"Intersubjectivity!" A new word with which someone is exploding Dream's head. Even after skimming the Wikipedia article on intersubjectivity, I'm not sure how you expect intersubjective evidence. Has a discussion among us about 'God' become a question about whether we truly exist or not? I thought Tao was using the words proof and evidence interchangeably based upon the assumption that the intersubjective is attainable and real. I mean, I'm not saying that pure intersubjectivity is possible since we are all individuals, but surely words like 'Proof' and 'Evidence' assume that it is at least to some degree. What do you mean by 'intersubjective evidence'?

 

[Tao_Equus]

That assumes we are owed an explanation of things, but that is clearly not the case -- god or no god. The reason lots of people think there is one god is they feel its impossible for there to be multiple gods, which is a mathematical argument. I think Socrates is one of those famous ancient people who came to the mathematical conclusion that there can only be one God. God, or no god: there can only be one. We have more proof of that now than ever before.

So I keep hearing....but where is it?

tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Not really Tao. You see they both do not, and can not exist simultaneously because they are mutually exclusive. Or more correctly, the universe that they both posit can not exist simultaneously.

If you believe they are mutually exclusive then you leave me with no alternative than to think you are wasting a lot of money on that edjumication. The quantum world is the realm of the subatomic scale and relativity deals with everything larger than that. They both exist within this universe. True the universe does seem very strange at the subatomic level, and it is most certainly only fragmentally understood, but in centuries to come I am sure we will look on our knowledge of the relatavistic physics of today as equally ignorant. I think you make an error in thinking the two mutually exclusive. There is very good evidence for sub-atomic particles behaving as predicted in quantum physics, and very good evidence that Einsteins equations predict the behaviour of everything from photons to electro-magnetism. They are patently not mutually exclusive. They both exist. And so I repeat, it is our understanding of them that is flawed. The truth is that they must be mutually inclusive, or else one or the other would not exist. And so, with all respect, I put it to you that you are so intent on fitting the square peg of god into the round hole of physical laws that you are making fundamental errors of reason.

Of course it is. This can be proven by your own words. In your first response to the argument, the only objection you raised to the Argument from Probabilities was the following: "You state it as scientific certainty that the universe is finite. But there is no such certainty."

I already stated that both the Big Bang, and its main alternative work on the basis of a finite model. Your main objection has been answered.

You stated you have mathematics to prove god exists. I challenged you to present them. I am still waiting.


tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

"Intersubjectivity!" A new word with which someone is exploding Dream's head. Even after skimming the Wikipedia article on intersubjectivity, I'm not sure how you expect intersubjective evidence. Has a discussion among us about 'God' become a question about whether we truly exist or not? I thought Tao was using the words proof and evidence interchangeably based upon the assumption that the intersubjective is attainable and real. I mean, I'm not saying that pure intersubjectivity is possible since we are all individuals, but surely words like 'Proof' and 'Evidence' assume that it is at least to some degree. What do you mean by 'intersubjective evidence'?

Well this assertion by c0de that the two realms of physics in discussion here are mutually exclusive certainly throws a spanner into the machinery of any intersubjectivity.

tao

 

[Dream]

You stated you have mathematics to prove god exists. I challenged you to present them. I am still waiting.

I didn't say that. Code said it. Thank you for quoting my post, however.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I didn't say that. Code said it. Thank you for quoting my post, however.

I think you should look again buddy I did quote c0de.

tao