Proof of God

[c0de]

@Tao

I think you make an error in thinking the two mutually exclusive......

The truth is that they must be mutually inclusive, or else one or the other would not exist.

Here is a quote from Stephen Hawkings book "A Brief History of Time"

"Unfortunately, however, these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other - they cannot both be correct."

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

I did present it. You even raised an objection to it. That objection of yours was then falsified.

 

[Tao_Equus]

@Tao




Here is a quote from Stephen Hawkings book "A Brief History of Time"

"Unfortunately, however, these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other - they cannot both be correct."

lol, ok you think Hawking is supporting your position. Well I suggest you keep reading that line again and again until it clicks.

I did present it. You even raised an objection to it. That objection of yours was then falsified.

Ok, you want to take that line, enjoy your delusions, you have proved nothing. You have already decided that you are right, despite your OP, nothing much to be gained in any discussion with you. Look forward to presenting you ideas, and getting them torn to shreds by people a lot smarter at wordsmithing than me.

 

[c0de]

lol, ok you think Hawking is supporting your position. Well I suggest you keep reading that line again and again until it clicks.

Ok, you want to take that line, enjoy your delusions, you have proved nothing. You have already decided that you are right, despite your OP, nothing much to be gained in any discussion with you. Look forward to presenting you ideas, and getting them torn to shreds by people a lot smarter at wordsmithing than me.

Actually, I already have presented these ideas to some of the faculty at UofT. They did recognize its merit. So far I have been encouraged by the reaction to the argument, even for the most part by the discussion on this thread. Even though you have obviously been very hostile to the views expressed, I still thank you for your contribution.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Dream,

thank you for the post.

What do you mean by 'intersubjective evidence'?

a decidedly salient question

i hope that you will not mind a cut and paste of a post i've made regarding this question in another venue. ( this from a discussion with a Christian and i shall no longer edit the particular narrowness of the post as it is too long to do so! please bear that in mind.)

first, let us clearly make a distinction between the terms "proof" and "evidence" for though it may seem to be a semantic quibble it really is not.

nearly without exception, though often stated otherwise, and atheists are seeking evidence of the claims Christianity makes rather than proof. proofs are parts of formal systems such as mathematics and logic though, sadly, in the vernacular proof has also come to mean evidence. it is evidence which compels a being to a certain point of view and this is true for all beings, even theists.

the discussion of evidence seems on its face to be rather straight forward and in our normal lives requires no particular thought, that which evidences is evidence and, in our context, the experience of conversion or of the Holy Spirit, being Born Again, feeling Grace and such *IS* evidence.

let me repeat that in case you skipped it: a Christians' experience concerning the Holy Spirit, with Grace, with being Born Again and so forth *IS* evidence.

it is evidence of a particular sort, called "subjective evidence". this is the same sort of evidence that we use when we taste a fruit or drink water or any other endeavor upon which our physical senses are effected, it is only when we, ourselves, taste a Durian do we know what a Durian tastes like. no matter how many people tells what a Durian tastes like we will never know it for ourselves until our first taste.

(this is due to several reasons not least of which is linguistically. given (name censored due to other forum) training in such areas i'd be pleased to have her expound on this aspect of language... (and you seem to grok what i'm saying without my having to be overly pedantic about it, protocol statements and such.))

it is the most familiar form of evidence with which we operate and thus in the vernacular the term evidence has become synonymous with "subjective evidence" which is sufficient for most instances. subjective evidence is evidence which we have privileged access to.

we are all to a greater or lesser degree aware of another kind of evidence; intersubjective evidence and it is to this that we now turn our attention.
it is this and only this sort of evidence that is what non-theists and atheists are requesting. it is all too true that non-monotheists and atheists do not often make this explicit <insert gentle chide> though it is, indeed, what we are asking for.

as i mentioned previously, the discussion of evidence seems straight forward but that was only in relation to subjective evidence. the addition of intersubjective evidence changes the view into something not quite as straight as was originally presumed.

what *is* intersubjective evidence?

a parsing of the term can help give you an inkling of the concept under consideration; inter- between, subjective-subjects though this would be a bit misleading. the facts (intersubjective) of the matter is that the idea of what constitutes evidence and how humans acquire such has been discussed for hundreds, if not thousands of years and thus it is no easy thing to consider.. even though subjective evidence is!

a link for the more studiously inclined:
Evidence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

specifically to our discussion is located in the essay here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ev...ubIntEviNeuArb

i'll say in advance that the discussion therein is rather technical and it presumes the reader is conversant in several different philosophical systems though each is explained therein.

i'll dispense with the technical verbiage at this point in the discussion to facilitate as much input as possible <that is the minutia of the discussion to be discussed as it arises>.

this quote, chosen by the author, express the idea of intersubjectivity seems a good opening to this part of the discussion:

What is creditable … is not the mere belief in this or that, but the having arrived at it by a process which, had the evidence been different, would have carried one with equal readiness to a contrary belief.

—Blanshard, Reason and Belief

here's the key bit:

"It is natural to suppose that the concept of evidence is intimately related to the cognitive ..... objectivity. According to this line of thought, individuals and institutions are objective to the extent that they allow their views about what is the case or what ought to be done to be guided by the evidence, as opposed to (say) the typically distorting influences of ideological dogma, prejudice in favor of one's kin, or texts whose claim to authority is exhausted by their being venerated by tradition. To the extent that individuals and institutions are objective in this sense, we should expect their views to increasingly converge over time: as shared evidence accumulates, consensus tends to emerge with respect to formerly disputed questions. Objective inquiry is evidence-driven inquiry, which makes for intersubjective agreement among inquirers."

i've indicated the pertinent bit in regards to this discussion. the reliance upon the Bible, in regards to Christianities claims for instance, as evidence does not constitute intersubjective evidence and it is for this reason that the use of the Bible is rejected by non-Christians and atheists. nor does the use of Christian theology in its ideological dogmatic sense qualify.

intersubjective evidence is evidence which is derived through a process which, had the evidence been different, would lead one as readily to a different conclusion. it is grounded in the idea of Objectivity, though this is not a discussion on that particular philosophical tradition <read essay> and is used in a particular manner; as the final arbiter in competing theories.

there is a wealth of information on this subject in the essay and it is well worth the time time to read it, imo, and i do a disservice to the author in my summation of his points.

"speaking plainly....[T]he most serious difficulty lay in the privacy of the objects to which the elementary statements were supposed to refer.… Because of such difficulties, Neurath, and subsequently Carnap, rejected the whole conception of elementary statements. They argued that if elementary statements were to serve as the basis for the intersubjective statements of science, they must themselves be intersubjective. They must refer, not to private incommunicable experiences, but to public physical events."

so this information gets added to the mix and we have two sorts of evidence and hence a great deal of circular discussion.

subjective evidence: consists of incommunicable private experiences with which we have privileged access.

intersubjective evidence: consists of public physical events which are observed by multiple observes to whom the accumulation of further evidence strengthens the convergence of their views with said evidence collected through the method of scientific objectivity ala Karl Popper.

both sides in this discussion use the term evidence though it is meant in the two different manners mentioned previously. when the atheist or non-Christian claims that the Christians experience isn't evidence, even though such is precisely that for the Christian, it is due to the nature of the evidence which is being asked for.

we are never asking for proof except when such term is being used in the vernacular to mean intersubjective evidence.

to the extent that i'm mangled the ideas of more expansive minds than mine, i offer my regrets... i do the best with what is available.

metta,

~v

 

[c0de]

Vajradhara,

I am sorry for intruding on your explanation, but I just wanted to add something about Karl Popper and his views on the Scientific Method before your discussion goes any farther because this is kind of important. Karl Popper is criticized by a lot of people, scientists/philosophers alike, because of his definition of the "scientific method".

Popper's attack on inductive reasoning is valid, yet completely impracticable. He borrowed his distrust of inductive logic from Hume, however he went too far with it. Hume himself recognized that inductive logic has to be employed as a plain and simple fact of life. He knew that it was problematic (which of course it is) but there is no real way to go about understanding the world without employing induction.

The truth is that in the real world, Science is not done the way Popper thinks it is done. Maybe this is because of his own lack of practical experience in the field. But the point is that in the real world, scientists don't go around creating theories around the evidence that they have accumulated. In actual fact, the process usually happens the other way around. Basically, you have a conviction, and you base you set on a goal to prove that conviction. This is how a scientific theory actually develops. This is how Einstein developed the Special Theory of Relativity for example.

So at the end of the day, as stated earlier, this line of questioning is not necessarily more useful for our purposes here. Because the questions raised are epistemic. Before we can raise the question "What is Scientific", you must first agree on a definition of the word "science". And of course eventually, this line of argumentation always comes down to the question of "What is knowledge?" There is no agreement on the answer to these questions at all.

 

[Nick_A]

Hello cOde

Some observations for you to consider: First you say 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.

Perhaps it just appears so from our limitations. Perhaps what we call energy is just fine matter vibrating at such a rate that we can no longer distinguish it as matter. Would you agree with the essence of this article:

The Kybalion

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Modern Science has proven that all that we call Matter and Energy are but "modes of vibratory motion," and some of the more advanced scientists are rapidly moving toward the positions of the occultists who hold that the phenomena of Mind are likewise modes of vibration or motion. Let us see what science has to say regarding the question of vibrations in matter and energy. [/FONT]

[/FONT]

The second thing to consider is the ancient law of the included middle that is gradually becoming used by scientists such as Basarab Nicolescu and could explain Einstein's "spooky actions at a distance". From the point of view of the Law of the included Middle, such particles can be part of a higher whole and not separate particles so what could be perceived as separate actions are actually a connected expression of a higher reality. It's like if you put your fingertips on a glass and looked at their movements from below, they would appear to be separate spheres. We wouldn't see that they were connected to a wrist.

Basarab Nicolescu : Gdelian Aspects of Nature and Knowledge

 

[c0de]

Hello cOde

Some observations for you to consider: First you say 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.

Perhaps it just appears so from our limitations. Perhaps what we call energy is just fine matter vibrating at such a rate that we can no longer distinguish it as matter. Would you agree with the essence of this article:

The Kybalion



The second thing to consider is the ancient law of the included middle that is gradually becoming used by scientists such as Basarab Nicolescu and could explain Einstein's "spooky actions at a distance". From the point of view of the Law of the included Middle, such particles can be part of a higher whole and not separate particles so what could be perceived as separate actions are actually a connected expression of a higher reality. It's like if you put your fingertips on a glass and looked at their movements from below, they would appear to be separate spheres. We wouldn't see that they were connected to a wrist.

Basarab Nicolescu : Gdelian Aspects of Nature and Knowledge

Hi Nick and welcome,


Great articles by the way, thank you. Regarding the first one (The Kybalion) this ties in very well to the last point made about Karl Popper. What really is "Science"? Can the occultistic claims on the nature of reality really be dismissed by "mainstream" scientists? I know most people would say yes, but if you look at the history of science, it is very clear how magic and science were the same thing until relatively recently. In fact, Metaphysics has always been inseperable from Science, and remains so to a considerable extend even today. Whenever you try and create a hypothesis which tries to explain reality, you will end up employing Metaphysics in one way or another, because evidence can only take you so far. Sooner or later you have to interpret it, and thats where convictions come into play.

As for the actual hypothesis of vibration, it reminds me a little of the strings in String Theory, which are also in a constant state of vibration. While looking through the wiki page for Godel's incompleteness theorem, I came accross this line which I liked very much "One can paraphrase the first theorem as saying, "we can never find an all-encompassing axiomatic system which is able to prove all mathematical truths, but no falsehoods." I love this. But this is my favourite:

The following rephrasing of the second theorem is even more unsettling to the foundations of mathematics:
If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent.

Is that amazing or what.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Nick and welcome,


Great articles by the way, thank you. Regarding the first one (The Kybalion) this ties in very well to the last point made about Karl Popper. What really is "Science"? Can the occultistic claims on the nature of reality really be dismissed by "mainstream" scientists? I know most people would say yes, but if you look at the history of science, it is very clear how magic and science were the same thing until relatively recently. In fact, Metaphysics has always been inseperable from Science, and remains so to a considerable extend even today. Whenever you try and create a hypothesis which tries to explain reality, you will end up employing Metaphysics in one way or another, because evidence can only take you so far. Sooner or later you have to interpret it, and thats where convictions come into play.

As for the actual hypothesis of vibration, it reminds me a little of the strings in String Theory, which are also in a constant state of vibration. While looking through the wiki page for Godel's incompleteness theorem, I came accross this line which I liked very much "One can paraphrase the first theorem as saying, "we can never find an all-encompassing axiomatic system which is able to prove all mathematical truths, but no falsehoods." I love this. But this is my favourite:



Is that amazing or what.

Yes it is amazing what is beyond our current understanding

Andre Weil, Simone Weil's brother, was one of the world's leading mathematicians, He wrote:

God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exists since we cannot prove it.
Quoted in H Eves Mathematical Circles Adieu (Boston 1977).

Makes one wonder if we are not dealing with things that as we are may be beyond our understanding at least for the great majority. If such things inspire humility in those like Einstein and Weil, perhaps there is more to this than we suspect:

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Shakespeare

Well cOde, as long as there is still good scotch, all is not lost.

 

[c0de]

This quote by Andre Weil just made it to my all time favs list.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Code,

thank you for the post.

Before we can raise the question "What is Scientific", you must first agree on a definition of the word "science". And of course eventually, this line of argumentation always comes down to the question of "What is knowledge?" There is no agreement on the answer to these questions at all.

by and large the issues which you've raised are addressed within the essays which have been quoted as references in my post.

it really matters little what the definition of scientific is per se as it is the area of intersubjectivity which this post is addressing. its particular application is narrow enough, of course.

metta,

~v

 

[Dream]

Ok, Vajradhara I see what you're talking about now. Intersubjectivity seemed a little mysterious as I was unfamiliar with the term 'intersubjective'. There are ways of seeing everything in the world as subjective, so the request for 'intersubjective evidence' at first sounded like a request for ghost sweat. You're saying that a mathematical proof of God would not be useful evidence to you, since it is merely a system of formalized human logic and not as readily apparent as an axiom.

 

[Penguin]

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."

Good post! An interesting and informative read. Is there going to be a part 2 or re-evaluation? Many thanks.

 

[c0de]

Good post! An interesting and informative read. Is there going to be a part 2 or re-evaluation? Many thanks.

Hello Penguin, and thank you for your interest. Instead of following up with the same subject, I have decided to move on to the next major hurdle. Basically, the consequences of the implication that there is a God. I am just posting a Thread titled "The Problem of Evil", I would be glad to have you contribute your opinions

 

[enlightenment]

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

tao

Hi David,

I was asked to read this thread, as I was told that there was 'proof of god', lol, within it!

Um, can you tell me where this PROOF is, as, much like you, I see no proof of anything.

 

[c0de]

Hi David,

I was asked to read this thread, as I was told that there was 'proof of god', lol, within it!

Um, can you tell me where this PROOF is, as, much like you, I see no proof of anything.

Why are you replying to Tao???

The issue you have to deal with, is in the first post.

 

[enlightenment]

Because, like him, I am still waiting on this 'proof', and nothing in your OP here, or on that other thread provides anything close to it.

Keep on believing though....

 

[c0de]

Because, like him, I am still waiting on this 'proof', and nothing in your OP here, or on that other thread provides anything close to it.

Keep on believing though....

Unlike him, you haven't even tried to tackle the issue yet bud...

At least he tried... (he failed, but tried)...

You aren't even trying to engage... thats just pure laziness...

 

[enlightenment]

He didn't fail.

And it is not lazy.

It is boredom.

You promised proof.

Do you even know what the word means?

 

[c0de]

He didn't fail.

Oh really? how so? Care to elaborate?

 

[greymare]

AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH

You mob are just banging your heads against a brick wall.

Its obvious to me that the people here who dont believe in God, will not believe in God no matter who says what to them. Or what is written in any book, because they dont believe that the book/s come from God. (ie, because He doesnt exist) (to them). We can go round and round but this isnt going to change.

Its also obvious to me that those who have faith in God wont stop believeing in God no matter what is said to them or what "facts" are pointed out...

In other words, you mob are chasing your tails... spending a lot of energy getting nowhere.

Having a relationship with God or not having a relationship with God is personal. We all have our reasons.


whispers( i hate it when my kids fight...)