The answer to the "Does God exist" question from Human Practice

FZ+

The only possible answer i see is that a higher power or atleast a being that is able to create an existence such as this exists outside of ours.

And yet you are at a loss to explain what gave this being existence itself. In fact, all you have acheived is the transferral of the property of spontaneous existence from the universe to the high power, from that which can be known to that which can never be known, from a potential for examination to a dead end.

How can the existence already be there? How can it not already be there, when there are no laws, no reason to deny it's existence? See what worthless speculation about non-existence brings?

Lrdmora: This is nebulous and wrong because a computer differs from us in crucial respects - it has a purpose, from a designer. To argue for the existence of a design, you must first establish a purpose, or meaning for it's existence. By this, you can then talk about errors, meanings, perfection. Without that, talk about the perfection of mankind is meaningless because there is nothing to judge by - no criteria for such discussion. To use that to say god exists, you must first assume that god exists in the first place, and that your sense of what is important is magically the same as his. Without that, your words are simply dust on the wind.

Until you can say that mankind has a universally special element in it's existence, you cannot declare a purpose. Until you declare a purpose, you cannot find a design. Until you find a design, you cannot prove a designer. Until you prove a designer, you cannot say mankind has an universally special element in it's existence.

That is the central fallacy of the design argument.

You say you cannot believe it came about by chance? Don't you know what chance acheives? Have you see anything that came by chance? Like a snowflake? A storm? A flame? A bolt of electricity? A star?

BoulderHead

Originally posted by Netme
The only possible answer i see is that a higher power or atleast a being that is able to create an existence such as this exists outside of ours.

But this solves nothing at all;

Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that God is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove.
-- Dan Barker

Netme

Originally posted by FZ+
And yet you are at a loss to explain what gave this being existence itself. In fact, all you have acheived is the transferral of the property of spontaneous existence from the universe to the high power, from that which can be known to that which can never be known, from a potential for examination to a dead end.

How can the existence already be there? How can it not already be there, when there are no laws, no reason to deny it's existence? See what worthless speculation about non-existence brings?

Lrdmora: This is nebulous and wrong because a computer differs from us in crucial respects - it has a purpose, from a designer. To argue for the existence of a design, you must first establish a purpose, or meaning for it's existence. By this, you can then talk about errors, meanings, perfection. Without that, talk about the perfection of mankind is meaningless because there is nothing to judge by - no criteria for such discussion. To use that to say god exists, you must first assume that god exists in the first place, and that your sense of what is important is magically the same as his. Without that, your words are simply dust on the wind.

Until you can say that mankind has a universally special element in it's existence, you cannot declare a purpose. Until you declare a purpose, you cannot find a design. Until you find a design, you cannot prove a designer. Until you prove a designer, you cannot say mankind has an universally special element in it's existence.

That is the central fallacy of the design argument.

You say you cannot believe it came about by chance? Don't you know what chance acheives? Have you see anything that came by chance? Like a snowflake? A storm? A flame? A bolt of electricity? A star?

If we are the creation of a higher power what makes our creator have to exist by our existential rules? Whose to say that existence even applies to our creator? If you were to create a computer you would have to design certain rules for how it would operate(exist) but you would not have to operate by those same rules yourself. But how you choose to make your computer operate must be able to function using the general rules of physics. So we are not at a dead end by theorizing a higher power. The more we know about our physics the more we will know how our creator functions.

Lrdmora

Originally posted by FZ+

Lrdmora: This is nebulous and wrong because a computer differs from us in crucial respects - it has a purpose, from a designer. To argue for the existence of a design, you must first establish a purpose, or meaning for it's existence.

Does a computer know that it has a purpose? Just because you can't pin down your purpose doesn't mean that you don't have one. After all would you argue with me if I said that a star has a purpose? There are many things in science that we do not understand, but I have yet to her a scientist say that just because we don't understand it, it has no purpose. So I find your argument invalid, it would be more accurate to say that humans have not found their purpose.

Originally posted by FZ+

By this, you can then talk about errors, meanings, perfection. Without that, talk about the perfection of mankind is meaningless because there is nothing to judge by - no criteria for such discussion. To use that to say god exists, you must first assume that god exists in the first place, and that your sense of what is important is magically the same as his. Without that, your words are simply dust on the wind.

1. It does not take a rocket scientist to tell that someone with mental problems is not normal, so I do believe that there is something to judge by; the norm. Don't let yourself be so caught up with intellectual theory that you ignore the obvious. If someone came up to you on the street having hallucinations you wouldn't say that he could be normal because you don't have a "perfect human" to judge by.

2. I don't recall ever saying that "God" exists, I said that I believe that we are designed. You can draw your own conclusions from there. And as far as "Magically" I have found many people who "Magically" believe in the Big Bang when no such proof exists. There are many theories that cannot be proven yet, but I do not emphatically believe that they are wrong. I take a step back and wait to see. (You seem to have a flair for words though, ". . .dust in the wind. . . etc.)[;)]

Originally posted by FZ+

Until you can say that mankind has a universally special element in it's existence, you cannot declare a purpose. Until you declare a purpose, you cannot find a design. Until you find a design, you cannot prove a designer. Until you prove a designer, you cannot say mankind has an universally special element in it's existence.

I think I can say that mankind has a universally special element; intelligence. The last time I checked we are the only ones around with self consciousness. When was the last time you saw a chance arguing about the existance of a higher power? The mere fact that you have the facalties of reason and free will proves this. I think that I have already taken care of your "Design" argument, is just isn't accurate.

Originally posted by FZ+

You say you cannot believe it came about by chance? Don't you know what chance acheives? Have you see anything that came by chance? Like a snowflake? A storm? A flame? A bolt of electricity? A star?

I will admit that there is a certain randomness in the universe, but your argument about a snowflake, etc., doesn't hold. There is a rigid structure behind electrical storms, (positive and negitive charges) and while the outcome (where lightning strikes) is random, the reasons behind the lightning are not. The same with stars, but nice try.

I certainly enjoyed the discussion though, it is not good to be to rigid in thinking, the whole reason Einstien didn't discover the flaws in his theories was because he could not believe that "God plays dice with the universe".

Remember that the more exotic the theory to explain something, the more areas there are for flaws. Common sense and simplicity are the cornerstones of good thinking.

Royce

Originally posted by BoulderHead
But this solves nothing at all;

Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that God is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove.
-- Dan Barker

Isn't The Big Bang an uncaused cause? If the universe and or life came about spontaniously wouldn't that be an uncaused cause?

How is your uncaused cause any more likly, scientific, logical or reasonable than the theistic uncaused cause.

I refuse to allow any of you claim the theistic first cause is absurd while the materialistic first cause is perfectly reasonable. That statement in it's self is absurd and self contradictory. If one first or uncaused cause is absurd then they all are. Take your choice. They are all absurd or they are all reasonable. Either way they no longe have any point to make in any discussion of theism vs objectivism.

FZ+

If we are the creation of a higher power what makes our creator have to exist by our existential rules? Whose to say that existence even applies to our creator?

What makes you say our universe itself obeys existential rules? Why should existence be subject to the laws of existence itself? To use the computer analogy, why would you say that the hardware of the computer obeys the same laws as the software within it?

I am not saying that to say a god exists in "wrong", by this idea, but it is no proof. It is simply a transferral of the assumption that something can exist without or intuiative laws from one entity to another.

Just because you can't pin down your purpose doesn't mean that you don't have one.

That is precisely true, and that's why you are wrong in trying to use this as a reason for the belief in god. What you are attempting to say is that A is true because you don't know if A is true or false. This is of course an incorrect argument. What you have acheive is a production of possibility - a self-consistent argument indeed, but one without that crucial link to what we know. You see, I did not say humans do not have a purpose - I said that we cannot know it. And hence the design argument fails to get started.

You cannot begin an argument on the unknown, only recognise the indeterminacy. Do you see?

1. It does not take a rocket scientist to tell that someone with mental problems is not normal, so I do believe that there is something to judge by; the norm. Don't let yourself be so caught up with intellectual theory that you ignore the obvious. If someone came up to you on the street having hallucinations you wouldn't say that he could be normal because you don't have a "perfect human" to judge by.

But such a rocket scientist world be wrong. For the normal you speak of is not the same as perfection. If all the world's men were struck down with disease, then corpses would be the norm, but hardly perfection. If we keep a child in isolation all it's life, we would have one "pure" from influences, but also abnormal and imperfect. If we cast the range of our survey back fifty years, a hundred years, a millennia, we will not find a "norm" that people settle to, but a moving average that you can only find as you go along. Which is perfection?

Perfection is a judgement on values, on what the observer holds dear. His child may, for example, be "perfect". But it does not make sense to talk of universal perfection, of few errors, if you have not established that an universal, known purpose exists.

2. I don't recall ever saying that "God" exists, I said that I believe that we are designed. You can draw your own conclusions from there. And as far as "Magically" I have found many people who "Magically" believe in the Big Bang when no such proof exists. There are many theories that cannot be proven yet, but I do not emphatically believe that they are wrong. I take a step back and wait to see. (You seem to have a flair for words though, ". . .dust in the wind. . . etc.)

You miss the point. To say that a designer exists both presumes on the existence of God and implies the existence of God. What you said about the computer, and all, pivot precisely on this point. And I am saying that drawing anything from what is effective a circular argument is inconclusive. It is a consistent belief system, but only a belief system. (also, much proof does exist for the big bang, but thanks for the flattery.)

I think I can say that mankind has a universally special element; intelligence. The last time I checked we are the only ones around with self consciousness. When was the last time you saw a chance arguing about the existance of a higher power? The mere fact that you have the facalties of reason and free will proves this. I think that I have already taken care of your "Design" argument, is just isn't accurate.

... Fallen into my carefully rigged trap, I see.[g)]

What is intelligence? Can you prove that anyone other than yourself is intelligent? Can you prove to me that you are intelligent, and not an engine listing set statements? You cannot, except through the exhibition of communication. In reality, our sole concept of intelligence is that of a relative thing, of something behaving in a way that is similar to us. We do not consider the rest of animal kind intelligent because they don't look like us, and don't talk like us. This says nothing about that which is universally special, but of the egotistical element of the human brain, and the judgement of all others relative to itself.

And free will? What free will?
In each moment, you are constrained by both the hardware of your brain, and by the software of your memory only through which the past, and thus the present has meaning. Can you show any freedom in there, and make it truely different from say the freedom of an electron in it's charge cloud?

When was the last time I saw chance arguing for a higher power? Probably when I read your post. [;)]

I will admit that there is a certain randomness in the universe, but your argument about a snowflake, etc., doesn't hold. There is a rigid structure behind electrical storms, (positive and negitive charges) and while the outcome (where lightning strikes) is random, the reasons behind the lightning are not. The same with stars, but nice try.

It isn't? *Flexes QM fingers*

The funny thing is, all of this, the storms, the snowflake, where does it come from? The Sun. More specifically, the fusion reactions inside it.

If we measure the sun, we find an interesting fact - the particles in the Sun do not have ENOUGH ENERGY to fuse. If we plot the known potential well for it, it seems the sun should be dark, and we should be dead. The gap is in the thing called quantum tunnelling. At certain times, the particles have a probability to borrow energy that lets them fuse, or do whatever. And this process is entirely random. Not just unpredictable, but utterly acausal and random (Royce, does that make hydrogen god? [;)]) So we come to the conclusion that the driving force behind the entire universe is random action! And that includes the weather, stars, and petty things like brains.

But there's more. Do you know about chaos theory? Chaos theory says that the actual structure of the universe, though determinist, shows precisely the element of ordered randomness that we call chance. By chaotic rules, order is something that naturally comes out of chaos, and chaos is something that derives from order. And this takes me to the classic example, the electrical storm. Though the forces on the storm are, effectively random, and you can never predict for any length of time the behaviour of the storm, we notice that still it follows trends. This is because the chaos still follows laws, and the randomness still puts itself into the same quality of behaviour. Even though your inputs are almost completely random, you can tell what a lightning bolt would effectively be shaped like a lightning bolt.
What makes these electrical storms interesting is that they in fact form a close analogy of the flow of ions and currents in the human brain. Order from chaos.

That is the real way randomness acts in the real world - a combination of absolute randomness from Quantum Uncertainty, and the determinist chaos that creates.. well... everything.

If your perceive chance as something that only destroys, that cannot create new ordered system, then very little of such chance exists. You don't actually know what chance is.

I certainly enjoyed the discussion though, it is not good to be to rigid in thinking, the whole reason Einstien didn't discover the flaws in his theories was because he could not believe that "God plays dice with the universe".

Einstein's God was Spinoza's god. A god that is simply a manifestation of his belief in the inherent order and sensibleness of the universe. His real mistake was to believe that common sense and simplicity are good foundations for thinking, instead of realising that the only foundations are what we can see. He did not realise how the dice do exist, but are more beautiful than he imagined.

Never underestimate "chance".

Royce:

Isn't The Big Bang an uncaused cause? If the universe and or life came about spontaniously wouldn't that be an uncaused cause?

Yes, but that is not god.

EDIT: Wow... what a long post...

It is highly recommended NOT to quote it when replying.

Lrdmora

You've brought a smile to my face and made me crack up! (especialy that bit about common sense and simplicity) I am being serious not sarcastic! Give me a while and I will reply.

[:D]

By the way don't mistake conjecture for proof! There was plenty of proof that the earth was flat too!

BoulderHead

Originally posted by Royce
Isn't The Big Bang an uncaused cause?

Not the one I attended. It followed a lot of heavy drinking and pill swallowing. [:D]

If the universe and or life came about spontaniously wouldn't that be an uncaused cause?
How is your uncaused cause any more likly, scientific, logical or reasonable than the theistic uncaused cause.

It doesn’t jump to an assumption involving god, let alone all the rest that follows when people start thinking in those terms.

I refuse to allow any of you claim the theistic first cause is absurd while the materialistic first cause is perfectly reasonable.

I haven’t made that claim this week nor do I pretend to know what caused this existence. You, however, have made the claim that God is a spiritual being…
So, you not only know there is a God, but you even know what kind of an entity it is. What is more absurd, really, my admission of ignorance or what you have claimed?

… If one first or uncaused cause is absurd then they all are. Take your choice. They are all absurd or they are all reasonable...

I think some are clearly more absurd than others, but if you’re willing to agree with me that they are all absurd would you agree to never utter the word ‘god’ again?

I don’t believe you will.

Netme

Originally posted by FZ+
What makes you say our universe itself obeys existential rules? Why should existence be subject to the laws of existence itself? To use the computer analogy, why would you say that the hardware of the computer obeys the same laws as the software within it?

Everything in our universe follows exestential rule. Nothing can be formed without something to form it. Nothing can just appear or dissapear. What do you mean by why should existence be subject to the laws of existence itself?
The hardware must obey the same laws as the software within it because they were both made in our existence . Im saying that the creator of the computer must be able to function with the same physics as the computer. In this situation we would be the higher power and the computer our creation. Wouldnt you say that a computer has a kind of mind? Some might say but a computer does not have free will. what is free will?
Even today we have computer programs able to choose which operations would be most beneficial as to what the desired solution is. Again some may say that the computer is programed to act that way and cannot make decisions on its own. What if the computer were programed to randomly choose which operation it would take whether it be beneficial or not. Wouldnt that be free will? Our free will is nothing more than a choice of action from a list of possible actions.

Iacchus32

Originally posted by FZ+
You say you cannot believe it came about by chance? Don't you know what chance acheives? Have you see anything that came by chance? Like a snowflake? A storm? A flame? A bolt of electricity? A star?

None of these things come about by chance. They come about via the principle laws of physics. And can only come about when certain "preconditions" are met. This, I would hardly call chance. [;)]

FZ+

Iacchus:
Though that doesn't account for the quantum examples.

Ignoring that, by that description, as chance being that which is without law, chance does not exist.
Bye bye free will!

Netme:

The hardware must obey the same laws as the software within it because they were both made in our existence .

I've tried, but I was never able to "delete" my monitor, or run it through a virus checker.
Observe here the severe difference between that which is the medium on which in information (objects) is written, and the information within.

Im saying that the creator of the computer must be able to function with the same physics as the computer.

I am saying that unlike the software, the computer has a CPU, a monitor, a keyboard, a mouse, a floppy drive... I am saying that by the same justification you used to give your God exemption from existential laws, I can give the fabric of the universe the same powers.

As for the free will thing, wasn't that exactly what I suggested to defeat the idea of the specialness of mankind?

Lrdmora

1. It is very possible that you have me on the QM because I do not know that much about Quantum Mechanics. (I will look into it a little closer thanks to you!) I do have one point here though, just because it is random, or chance for you my friend, doesn't mean it can't be designed. Dice are random and get more random with the amount of dice or sides, but I am pretty sure that they are designed and sold. Vegas would go out of business without them. I could be wrong but I think that you can engineer chance.

2. I never said that humans were perfect, what I said was there are very few operating system errors (statistically). Windows OS is not perfect yet I can still tell when it has the BSOD! (Bill Gates may fit the definition of a blind parent who thinks his creation is perfect, but he is the only one!) So if I can tell when my computer has errors I must be able to tell when it is operating nominally (Maybe that is a better word than norm).

3. I don't follow you completely on the purpose paragraph, but as far as I can tell just because you cannot tell you have purpose (indeterminacy) does not mean there is no design. A computer couldn't tell you its purpose, it is still designed. Besides all indeterminacy means is that it can go either way, sort of like schroders (I didn't spell that right did I?) cat, you will never know until you open the box, but opening the box destroys the experiment. I am more than willing to say that it could go either way, design or chance, but I believe in design. That is not to say if I found absolute proof either way that I would not change my mind. Besides believing in design is not the same as believing in "God".

4. Your statement on intelligence I will leave alone because it is the most ridiculus thing I have ever heard. Mumbo Jumbo, Ivory tower intellecualism, and of course impossible to argue against because it actually means nothing. Prove that a bean isn't intelligent, wait! How can you know it isn't intelligent? You are using your subjective reality to classify it, maybe, in its own beany way it is as intelligent as you or I. I doubt I will be seeing beans flying to the moon anytime soon. But, that is your argument, such as it is.[;)]

5. The Big Bang. I happen to believe in the Big Bang but do not think that it has been proven yet. Red shift and background cosmic radiation are good starts and I think it has been argued effectivly but not neccessarily proven. Regardless of the media one way or the other. When I said that most people "Magically" believe in the Big
Bang just like most people "Magically" believe in God, this is true. If absolute proof was issued tomorrow that God does not exist and neither does the Big Bang, a majority of people on both sides would still believe.

6. Your bit about common sense and simplicity made me smile, I doubt many people would see it your way. But gave me a chuckle, after all we are all entitled to our opinions, at least in free countries.

I guess the conclusion is this, most people believe what they believe and they shape their world according to their beliefs. You believe everything is chance, and can find plenty of examples to champion that, I believe that there is a design and can find examples of it everywhere I look. It does not look like anyone can prove or disprove either theory with absolutness so the argument will continue. But that is life. Such as it is.
[;)]

Netme

nm

Iacchus32

Originally posted by FZ+
Iacchus:
Though that doesn't account for the quantum examples.

Ignoring that, by that description, as chance being that which is without law, chance does not exist.
Bye bye free will!

Bye bye the laws of physics too? ... Bye bye the PhysicsForums.Com? ... Bye bye FZ+? ... Bye Bye Iacchus32? ... Bye bye an "objective reality?" ... Bye bye the "materialist philosophy?" ... Bye bye the whole physical universe? ... Now let me know when to stop?

I think all this does is indicate that there is nothing but the design element involved. While you materialists keep saying you can't have a cause without an effect, so what's that got to do with chance? Are you now saying that you don't believe in predeterminism?

Or, is it entirely possible that free will and determinism are correlative? Meaning, you can't have freedom without the "potential" for slavery.

Royce

Originally posted by BoulderHead

It doesn’t jump to an assumption involving god, let alone all the rest that follows when people start thinking in those terms.

I haven’t made that claim this week nor do I pretend to know what caused this existence. You, however, have made the claim that God is a spiritual being…
So, you not only know there is a God, but you even know what kind of an entity it is. What is more absurd, really, my admission of ignorance or what you have claimed?

I think some are clearly more absurd than others, but if you’re willing to agree with me that they are all absurd would you agree to never utter the word ‘god’ again?

I don’t believe you will.

You missed my point, as did FZ+, either intentionally or unintentionally. I do not asttempt to prove the existence of G-- with the uncaused argument. My point is that the First Cause or Uncaused argument is invalid absurd and moot.
If I say God created the universe, the reply most often heard is Okay who or what created God, the first cause argument.
My point is that such a reply is nonsense and inconsistant with any materialist view. If the universe could have always been or came about randomly or spontainiously the the same could be said for a creator. I do not dispute spontanious or random uncaused events. I therefore will not accept the validity of this argument against the possiblity of a creator.

FZ+, No hydrogen is just a commoner like us. Tritium is god and duterium is his son.

Zero

Originally posted by Royce
You missed my point, as did FZ+, either intentionally or unintentionally. I do not asttempt to prove the existence of G-- with the uncaused argument. My point is that the First Cause or Uncaused argument is invalid absurd and moot.
If I say God created the universe, the reply most often heard is Okay who or what created God, the first cause argument.
My point is that such a reply is nonsense and inconsistant with any materialist view. If the universe could have always been or came about randomly or spontainiously the the same could be said for a creator. I do not dispute spontanious or random uncaused events. I therefore will not accept the validity of this argument against the possiblity of a creator.

FZ+, No hydrogen is just a commoner like us. Tritium is god and duterium is his son.

Obviously, neither side can use those arguments. IS there an argument for teh existance of nonexistant things? DId I miss it somewhere in this thread?

BoulderHead

Originally posted by Royce
You missed my point, as did FZ+, either intentionally or unintentionally. I do not asttempt to prove the existence of G-- with the uncaused argument. My point is that the First Cause or Uncaused argument is invalid absurd and moot.

There is no misunderstanding on my part that I’m aware of. You provided your thinking clearly enough when you said;

I refuse to allow any of you claim the theistic first cause is absurd while the materialistic first cause is perfectly reasonable.

Perhaps you missed the reason for my original post, because there is a difference between pointing out to Netme that his/her thinking had a hole in it, and making a claim for the validity of some other assertion.

Similar Threads for: The answer to the "Does God exist" question from Human Practice
Thread	Forum	Replies
Edward Witten on LQG "for lambda > 0, QG does not exist in any dimension"	Beyond the Standard Model	5
"Automatic A if You Answer This Question"	Introductory Physics Homework	1
What is "existence" and what will it mean to "exist" ?	General Discussion	4
truth value of "for all x in {}" and "there exist x in {}"	Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics	21
Do protons also exist as "proton waves" similar to the "electron waves"?	High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics	8

Lrdmora	You've brought a smile to my face and made me crack up! (especialy that bit about common sense and simplicity) I am being serious not sarcastic! Give me a while and I will reply. [:D] By the way don't mistake conjecture for proof! There was plenty of proof that the earth was flat too!