Is There Proof That God Exists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HIGHLYTOXIC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the existence of God and the nature of belief, emphasizing that proof of God is inherently elusive and subjective. Participants argue that personal experiences, often through meditation, can lead to a profound understanding of God that transcends traditional notions of faith. Some express skepticism about the need for God in modern society, suggesting that reliance on the concept of God can lead to dangerous conflicts. The conversation also touches on the relationship between science and spirituality, with some asserting that both can coexist and that new theories may bridge the gap between the two. Ultimately, the dialogue reflects a deep exploration of belief, experience, and the quest for understanding the divine.
  • #301
Originally posted by marco

I disagree. The concept of proof is certainly subjective,when applied to a theory or a concept, while the agreement between a given experimental data (represented by a measurment, that is a number) and the solution of a theoretical equation (represented again by a number) is objective. In fact the comparison between two numbers is a mathematical operation, and such operation is objective. Therefore, the systematic and quantitatve agreement between quantum theory and experimental data is objective.

I too disagree. For one to compare experimentation or comparison between two numbers is a subjective function of the observer. Objectively, the numbers or experiments would have to compare themselves, one to another.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #302
>>>I too disagree. For one to compare experimentation or comparison between two numbers is a subjective function of the observer. Objectively, the numbers or experiments would have to compare themselves, one to another.

It is evident that we have a different concept of the word "subjective". With "subjective" I mean something that is a matter of personal arbitrary opinion.
Of course the comparison between numbers is not matter of arbitrary opinion. It is an objective fact that eah person can check.
 
  • #303
Originally posted by marco

It is evident that we have a different concept of the word "subjective". With "subjective" I mean something that is a matter of personal arbitrary opinion.
Of course the comparison between numbers is not matter of arbitrary opinion. It is an objective fact that eah person can check.


In the world of medicine and history/phsical taking these two words have very distinct meanings.

When we question a patient about their symptoms and complaints, we subjectively examine and observe the patient by physical examination.

When we ask the patient's for his or her objectivesymptoms, they relate to us what they are experiencing or noticing about themselves.
 
  • #304
A person's mind and personality is equivalent to their "software", that is, to the programming of their brain.

Any software structure can be coded by some large set of natural numbers.

Every set of numbers exists eternally as a mathematical abstraction independent of the physical universe.

Therefore each individual's personality is immortal.
 
  • #305
russ!

hey Russ, What a strange thing to see you here. Did you get my email? Does the CTMU support plant sentience?? Of couse "sentience" is intrinsic in all matter and energy, living or dead. Matter is solidified consciousness.

Isn't the existence of subjectivity in itself a universal objective phenomenon?
 
Last edited:
  • #306
particle existence

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Rader

I know of particle existence and the scientific method and am interested in your point of view. My approach is also scientific and all my arguements are based on the evidence on hand.

How do you know particles exist?

Whats was said is that i know of particle existence and that does not imply that i believe particles exist. A personal experience does not imply anything exists, except for me.

How do you know YOUR scientific approach is any more valid than the flat Earth society during their time here?

Nor can i nor you be sure of anything. Its suffix to be sure for me.

Particles and Zebras are made of, whatever it is, that they are made of. Its seems that once that is realized, we can begin to visualize what consciousness is.

You apparently are delusional to think that once you understand the nature of what Zebras are made of, you will begin to visualize the essence of consiousness.

Then we all have our delusions do we not. All the evidence at hand indicates that Zebras and particles are made of the same thing. That not known quantum, to describe it simple is "Isness" Consciousnes is that "Isness" that manifests itself though matter in diffeent ways, on differet evolutionary levels.

Can you create life from inanimate matter like Baron Frankenstein? That is just about how much chance you will ever get to understand consciousness.

No but if i could create life from inanimate matter, i would prefer Marilyn Monroe to Baron Frankenstein.

What i believe, is the world is not what most believe it is.

Quantum phenomena provides “prima facie” evidence that information get around in ways that do not conform to classical ideas. Thus, the idea that information is transferred superluminally is, “a priori” not unreasonable. Everything that we know about Nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time, but generates events that can be located in space-time. One of the implications of Bells Theorum is that, at a deep and fundamental level, the “separate parts” of the universe are connected in an intimate and immediate way. Also the implications of Bells Theorum is, that if, statistical predictions of quantum theory are correct, then some of our commonsense ides, about the world, are profoundly mistaken. In what way, it was just not clear, until Clauser and Freeman in 1972, performed an experiment which confirmed statistical predictions upon which Bell based his theorem. Repeated experimental data from the EPR two split experiment, Einstein-Podolosky- Rosen experiment `` using spin states`` thought up by David Bohm, EPR experiments using “polarized photons” seems to indicate, that information can be communicated at superluminal speeds contrary to the classical accepted ideas of physics. Bells theorem is the most profound discovery of science. In 1982 Alain Aspect, conducted an experiment which was similar to Clauser-Freeman experiment, with one important difference, at the last microsecond, the measuring devices could be changed, and this satisfied the conditions upon which the logical analysis leading to the phenomena of superluminal transfer of information, is based. Bells Theorum implies that what occurs at a certain time, is not a matter of chance. Like everything else, it depends upon something that which is happening elsewhere. The nonlocal aspect of Nature illuminated by “Bells Theorum” is accommodated in QM by the collapse of the wave function. This collapse is a sudden global change of the wave function, of a system. It takes place when any part of the system is observed. That is, when an observation on a system is made in one region, the wave function changes instantly, not only in one region but also in far away regions. It reflects the fact that, the parts of the system are correlated with each other, hence that a increase of information here is accompanied by a increase of information about the system elsewhere. However in quantum theory this collapse of the wave function, is such that what happens in a far-away place must, in some cases, depend on what an observer here choose to observe, what you see there depends on what I do here. This is a completely a nonclassical effect. The principle of local causes says, that what happens in one area, does not depend upon variables, subject to the control of the experimenter in a distant space-like separated area. The simplest way to explain the failure of the principle of local causes is, to conclude that what happens in one area does depend upon variables subject to the control of an experimenter in a distant space-like separated area. If this explanation is correct, then we live in a nonlocal universe, characterized by superluminal connections between apparently “separate parts”.
Emitte lucem Tuam et veritatem Tuam
 
Last edited:
  • #307


Originally posted by Rader

No but if i could create life from inanimate matter, i would prefer Marilyn Monroe to Baron Frankenstein.

And if I could create life, then I would have violated the reality that particulate matter can create consciousness.

What i believe, is the world is not what most believe it is.

Brother you can say that again.

Quantum phenomena provides “prima facie” evidence that information get around in ways that do not conform to classical ideas.

Actually there is no prima facie evidence that Quantum physics is anything more than an illusion. I believe that you are correct in your assumption that Bells Theorem has the premise that all so-called matter both communicates with and in some way effects all the matter in the universe.

Then we have another conundrum. Perhaps you are fascicled from the particle wave duality or from Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, but this what we will see in the following experiment. That experiment which begins is actually very simple and reproducible. With a light source, a wall with two holes and a screen the following effect has been done by many researchers. On side of the wall there is the light source and on the other side there is the screen. When light passes the wall we can see an interference sample on the screen. The maxima are not behind the holes on the screen, but there is one maximum between the two holes on the screen, otherwise it would not be an interference sample. On the right and on the left of this maximum there are dark areas and then again bright areas, but these bright areas are not as bright as the maximum in the middle. Then we have got two dark areas again and so on. This result should not wonder us, because this are waves and because some waves have got a longer way from the light source to the screen than other waves some waves strengthen each other and other waves extinguish each other. When two wave combs clash then they strengthens each other and when a wave comb and a wave valley clash then they extinguish each other. When one hole is closed the maximum is behind the opened hole. Now we will replace the light source through an electron source and we will make the experiment again. This time we get the same interference sample when both holes are opened. This proofs the wave character of the electrons. But it is important that light or electrons cannot be a wave and a particle at the same time. Now it becomes interesting, we do not let many electrons through out the wall, but only one after the other. When one electron passes the wall it cannot handicap himself and because it can only go throughout one of the holes it would be logical that the maxima are behind the two holes. But when we wait until many electrons have passed the wall we saw an interference sample again. When we repeat this experiment and we close one hole the maximum is behind the open hole. It seems that each electron somehow knows whether both holes are opened or only one. When we try to measure throughout which hole an electron goes we get two maxima behind the two holes. So it is wrong to say that the electron goes throughout one of these two holes, because we can say that it goes throughout both holes or we can also say that it goes throughout not hole, both answers are correct.

This implies that all particles or photons have a form of independent wisdom. What are the implications of Bells Theorem that all particles somehow communicate with every other particle in the universe and that every particle has some form of independent wisdom.

I think that the most probable explanation for both conundrums can be found at the following site. Also the age old question of what is on the other side of our universe looks like might be explained on this site.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF
 

Attachments

  • infinity.jpg
    infinity.jpg
    7.3 KB · Views: 418
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #308
Originally posted by Russell E. Rierson
A person's mind and personality is equivalent to their "software", that is, to the programming of their brain.

Any software structure can be coded by some large set of natural numbers.

Every set of numbers exists eternally as a mathematical abstraction independent of the physical universe.

Therefore each individual's personality is immortal.

"All things are numbers" that is Pythagorean philosophy. So information might be indestructable.
 
  • #309
Logical Proof that God Exists

Philophysicist


This is a logical Descartian kind of proof, but hard to refute

I think therefore I Exist (Descartes).
I am not God since I do not have unlimited knowledge and power.
I did not create myself.
The entity who created me(not necessarily God) is thus greater(more powerful) than I am.
Therefore by induction, God exists.

Induction means first we prove that a greater entity than ourselves exists. Then we apply the argument to that entity and so forth up the chain of existence to God.

Note the main argument does not depend on the nature of your external reality (ie you could be thinking you exist on someones computer, somewhere).
This argument is strictly between you and God.

A weaker proof is to take small steps by establishing a chain of superiority. A frog is superior to an amoeba, but a human is superior to a frog and so forth up the chain. This argument is weakened by the fact that we have to include our observed reality in the argument, a reality that may or may not be correct.
 
  • #310
the induction would apply to God saying that something greater than God created God.
 
  • #311
the induction would apply to God saying that something greater than God created God.
Exactly. This argument in fact disproves the existence of an ultimate being, since there is always a more ultimate being beyond it. If the argument is correct, of course.

The chain could be broken at any time by the prescence of a being that created itself. This, most accept, does not neccessitate that entity being a god.
 
  • #312
Deum

Think of it this way. Where is the beginning of a circle?
 
  • #313
this argument would be like concluding that there is a greatest number because every number has a number greater than itself.
 
  • #314
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
this argument would be like concluding that there is a greatest number because every number has a number greater than itself.

So that would mean that, a God would get exponentially more powerfull. Are numbers not information and informtion infinite. Just asking you are the math wizard.
 
  • #315
i'm not terribly fond of comparing God to numbers but yeah, i think that's right. and even if you say, well, what about the set of natural numbers itself, that's in a way bigger than every number so maybe that's like God. but the set of natural numbers is just the smallest of an infinite ascending chain of infinities with no end. however, i am working on a theory in which that infinite chain does end with what i call the universal set. quine and others (eg russell and his types theory) have already worked on this but I'm using three valued logic. still, no induction gives away anything about there being a "stopping point".
 
  • #316
Originally posted by FZ+

Exactly. This argument in fact disproves the existence of an ultimate being, since there is always a more ultimate being beyond it. If the argument is correct, of course. The chain could be broken at any time by the prescence of a being that created itself. This, most accept, does not neccessitate that entity being a god.

Your argument is faulty. Your chain analogy is on a contiuum backward into infinity. An Entity that may not have been created or created itself into existence is beyond compreshension (human).

Can you or anyone truly comprehend an infinty? Timelessness in a dimension without borders, shape, that extends into a void. The limits of conscious awareness to comprehend or visualize such a construct would be pointless as there is nothing to measure and no physical laws or quantum mechanics which never was, is or will ever apply to this theory.

What if our reality is only as we assume and our consciousness is only fiction in a particular holograph created for our perception in a short period of time allocated in this singularity.
 

Attachments

  • eye of god.jpg
    eye of god.jpg
    7.9 KB · Views: 472
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #317
phoenixthoth says "the induction would apply to God saying something greater than God created God". If that God call him God2 realized that there was a greater being then obviously God2 is not the ultimate. I don't think that shoots down the argument at all.

FZ2 says "The chain could be broken at any time by the prescence of a being that created itself. This, most accept, does not neccessitate that entity being a god." True ,however I can't think of a entity who realizes it exists and who can create itself as not being all powerful . Perhaps you can give an example.
 
  • #318
If that God call him God2 realized that there was a greater being then obviously God2 is not the ultimate. I don't think that shoots down the argument at all.
that's the point. the argument does not end, ever. if the induction actually did work then apply the induction hypothesis to whoever one would think the ultimate is to get an even more ultimate. thus the argument would prove that there is no ultimate because there would always be a being more ultimate. the whole induction step was predicated on the assumption that the creator of a being is more powerful or somehow greater than its creation which is quite debatable. so not only does the induction actually prove there is no greatest or most powerful being, the induction hypothesis is debatable (certainly not air-tight or impeccable), even if the induction would work and show there is an ultimate, one would have to define that ultimate to be God and there's no particular reason why that's a definition of God that would be universally acceptable.

i know God exists and i'd like it if there were a proof of it but i don't think this is it. i beleive, though i can't prove, that you'll never have an airtight proof of either of the following statements:
1. God exists
2. God does not exist.
part of the reason is that an argument would probably have to include a definition of God which would undoubtedly be unacceptable to everyone.
 
Last edited:
  • #319
OK I think were getting hung up on induction.

Instead of "Therefore by induction, God exists." we can say

"God is thus the limiting entity as entity superiorty goes to infinity".

We can make it mathematical. Assign a superiorty rating to entities of n. Then the godliness of an entity g(n) goes to God in the limit as superiority n increases to infinity,

g = g(n) --> g(°) = God
for n --> °

We want to introduce a limit to terminate the argument at infinity.
 
  • #320
what makes a creator superior to the creation?
 
  • #321
True ,however I can't think of a entity who realizes it exists and who can create itself as not being all powerful . Perhaps you can give an example.
Why, additionally, does the entity have to realize it exists? The first being capable of realisation does not have to be God, either. Existence does not have to occur from conscious creation.

Many things appear acausally in quantum physics. A mind can create itself - something demonstrated with every birth, every awakening.
 
  • #322
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
what makes a creator superior to the creation?
Because it has to be phrased that way in order to come to the conclusion that a specific version of the "god" concept exists.
 
  • #323
A god is simply not possible in our known universe with the current laws of physics.

Anybody describing a god outside our physical reality would just be guessing, in which case the concept of a god would be directly comparible to daydreaming about traveling back in time and saving a princess from a terrible dragon.
 
Last edited:
  • #324
i guess my faith in physics is just not as strong as yours.

is the existence of God even a falsifiable claim?
 
Last edited:
  • #325
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i guess my faith in physics is just not as strong as yours.

is the existence of God even a falsifiable claim?

??

I believe that is possible to refute anyone that claims to have any knowledge of a god.
 
  • #326
let's ask the mad scientist... that's not what falsifiable means. i forget what it means in science terms but basically it means something that is within the scope of science as far as i remember. for example, if i claim that there is a completely undetectable dodo-ray that no detector will ever detect than that's not a falsifiable claim. now if i claimed that there was a dodo-ray that could be detected if i do x, y, and z, and it has these a, b, and c properties, then that is a falsifiable claim. that's my retarted understanding of a falsifiable claim. google "falsifiable claim" for a real explanation.

as far as i knew there was a paradigm shift in science in that it is now recognized that the scope of science is only falsifiable claims.

some people define God to include something which is in a heaven, a place some people define to be accessable only to someone who is dead. thus in order to prove God is omnipresent, one would have to have access to heaven. hence, the claim that God is omnipresent is by definition not falsifiable by a living scientist.

that doesn't mean there is a God nor is it meant at all to prove there is a God. it just means that the claim God exists and is omnipresent is not falsifiable and therefore not within the scope of science one way or another. scientists define science to be the inappropriate tool to figure out if there is a God. it is, on the other hand, within the scope of philosophy and perhaps other tools are equipped to determine the God issue as well, but I'm of the mind that it will never be proven either way. besides, a proof is just a matter of meeting arbitrary criteria and satisfying convention, whether it be mathematical, judicial, popular, individual, scientific, philosophical, etc.
 
  • #327
Originally posted by FZ+

Why, additionally, does the entity have to realize it exists? The first being capable of realisation does not have to be God, either. Existence does not have to occur from conscious creation. Many things appear acausally in quantum physics. A mind can create itself - something demonstrated with every birth, every awakening.

The answer to your question is a question. For you, an entity, why is it necessary for you to realize that you exist?

For the second part of your question, existence cannot appear without cause as per your example of quantum physics simply because neither quantum physics nor any laws of nature can occur by itself like a magician's rabbit in hat trick.

For you to make such a ludicrous statement that a 'mind can create itself' is the equivalent of your creating yourself because it is your desire.

Your example of 'every birth or awakening' being an example of self-creation is a total lack of logic. And absence of logic is something that you appear to be able to create on your own.

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING... That's remarkable.
 
  • #328
Originally posted by Deeviant

I believe that is possible to refute anyone that claims to have any knowledge of a god.

Your statement that you believe you can refute anyone that claims to have an understanding that things must be created can also be refuted.

IMO your existence can also be successfully refuted.
 
  • #329
I HAVE PROOF THAT G-D EXITS

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

I personally have proof that G-d exists and further that He does not live in heaven.

But I'm not going to share my proof with you for then everyone would know for certain and that would take your G-d given 'freewill' away from you.

So for the time being, debate that which cannot be debated.
 
  • #330


Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by phoenixthoth

I personally have proof that G-d exists and further that He does not live in heaven.

But I'm not going to share my proof with you for then everyone would know for certain and that would take your G-d given 'freewill' away from you.

So for the time being, debate that which cannot be debated.
See, now THAT is some funny stuff!LOL, that's a perfect definition of unfalsifiable...we don't even get to know what the claim is!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
435
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
89
Views
16K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K